|
|
| (463 intermediate revisions by 50 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | | __NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
| {{divbox|blue|Welcome to the engine room|This is a place to ask about and discuss the inner workings of the charity. To discuss our external projects and activities, see how you can get involved or suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission, head over to the [[water cooler]].}} | | {{divbox|blue|Welcome to the engine room|This is a place to ask about and discuss the inner workings of the charity. To discuss our external projects and activities, see how you can get involved or suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission, head over to the [[water cooler]].}} |
| {|style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;" | | {| style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;" |
| |- | | |- |
| |[[File:Archives.png|x100px]] | | |[[File:Archives.png|x100px]] |
| |- | | |- |
| |align=center|{{#ifexist:Engine_room/2013|[[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Engine_room/2014|<br>[[/2014|2014]]}} | | | align="center" |{{#ifexist:Engine_room/2013|[[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Engine_room/2014|<br>[[/2014|2014]]}}{{#ifexist:Engine_room/2015|<br>[[/2015|2015]]}} |
| |} | | |} |
| __TOC__ | | __TOC__ |
|
| |
|
| ==Museum photography== | | ==Suggestions of potential events to attend== |
|
| |
|
| Would it be worth putting effort into trying to make this list as extensive as possible for the UK:
| | [[Project grants/Photographs covering African cultural events in London]] asks for suggestions of potential events to attend. My suggestion would be classic car rallies. A lot of wikipedia's car photos are taken of parked cars which tends to result in wide angle shots with messy backgrounds which tend not to look that great. Rallies where cars are driven allow you to get shots at longer focal lengths with cleaner backgrounds. A specific recommendation would be Great Dorset Steam Fair. As well as steam they have a lot of cars and bikes. I went there last year and was able to get stuff [[:commons:Category:Great Dorset Steam Fair (2016)|like this]] |
|
| |
|
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:WikiProject_Arts/Museum_photography
| | == Confirmation emails not arriving == |
|
| |
|
| 04:46, 3 April 2014 (BST)
| | [[Special:ConfirmEmail]] does not seem to be working for me. How long is the lag, typically? Please [[w:WP:NOTIFY|notify]] me in your reply. Thanks! [[User:Zazpot|Zazpot]] ([[User talk:Zazpot|talk]]) 20:18, 28 June 2017 (BST) |
|
| |
|
| :There are something like [http://www.museumsassociation.org/about/frequently-asked-questions 2,500 museums in the UK]. A comprehensive list noting how suitable they are for photography would be a pretty serious undertaking. Maybe if we narrow it down to something like the 100 most frequently visited museums. It could very easily end up that the UK would need it's own table or even a separate page. I think it would probably be a useful undertaking. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:49, 3 April 2014 (BST) | | :Hi {{ping|Zazpot}}, thanks for letting us know. I've [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org.uk/show_bug.cgi?id=433 asked our developers to take a look]. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:27, 29 June 2017 (BST) |
| :: I wonder if this would be something best done via Wikipedia or Wikidata, rather than commons. On Wikipedia, it could maybe be done with an additional infobox parameter that categorises the museum's article into an appropriate hidden category. On Wikidata, I guess it would need an additional parameter to be added that would allow the (referenced) addition of the information. I'm not sure I can see the point in doing this just on Commons for the Commons community nowadays, when it could be done much more generally. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:11, 4 April 2014 (BST) | | : |
| :::wikivoyage would be the other interested project. Trying to find out for all of them makes it a decent crowdsourced project. 100 isn't far off what I could dig out of my own archives.[[User:Geni|Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 05:42, 16 April 2014 (BST) | | ::{{ping|Richard Nevell (WMUK)}} thanks for this. Confirmation email still not received. Other emails to the same address seems to be reaching me fine. [[User:Zazpot|Zazpot]] ([[User talk:Zazpot|talk]]) 11:32, 29 June 2017 (BST) |
| | :: |
| | :::It hasn't ended up in spam by any chance? It sounds likely that something's broken. Special:PasswordReset is working so the wiki is able to send out some emails, so it might just be an issue with Special:ConfirmEmail. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:14, 29 June 2017 (BST) |
| | ::: |
| | ::::{{ping|Richard Nevell (WMUK)}} no, sadly not. I checked the spam folder before posting here (and have checked it again just now). Pressed the "Mail a confirmation code" button again today, just in case it had started working again, but still no joy. Will try signing up to the Bugzilla instance, so that I can follow up there. [[User:Zazpot|Zazpot]] ([[User talk:Zazpot|talk]]) 21:48, 4 July 2017 (BST) |
|
| |
|
| === Something more proactive? === | | == Meta: Spam == |
| Perhaps we should be doing something more proactive here, and setting out the types of permissions we'd like to see museums give their visitors, and persuading the museums to adopt those permissions? Something along the lines of Creative Commons, but for museum photography permissions? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (BST)
| |
| :I suspect a good starting point for defining that is to understand what permissions different institutions currently grant. There is no sense in inventing a wheel before we know whether one has already been invented. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 13:19, 22 April 2014 (BST)
| |
| :: I think the commons page gives a reasonable cross-spectrum of the types of permissions that institutions currently grant. I'd agree, though, about reinventing the wheel - I don't know if standard guidance exists for museums here or not. I guess the first step might be to ask an organisation like collections trust or culture24 if they have standard advice they give out at the moment that could be built on, if there's the interest in doing this. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:45, 28 April 2014 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Voting for the affiliate-selected seats on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation ==
| | Hi all, heck of a [[:Category:Speedy deletions|lot of spam]] which could do with deleting. Whilst I'm here, could someone rename my account to [[User:There'sNoTime]]? [[User:Samtar|Samtar]] ([[User talk:Samtar|talk]]) 14:36, 4 December 2017 (GMT) |
| | :Oh, and an edit filter would be good eh? [[User:Samtar|Samtar]] ([[User talk:Samtar|talk]]) 14:37, 4 December 2017 (GMT) |
| | ::I've renamed your account as requested, and am taking a look at some of the spam. An edit filter would definitely be worthwhile, but I don't know how to set one up. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:05, 4 December 2017 (GMT) |
| | :::{{ping|Richard Nevell (WMUK)}} I'm +sysop/EFM on enwp, happy to set something up if you'd like? [[User:There'sNoTime|There'sNoTime]] ([[User talk:There'sNoTime|talk]]) 17:52, 4 December 2017 (GMT) |
| | ::::{{ping|There'sNoTime}} Yes please, do you need admin access here to set it up? [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:20, 5 December 2017 (GMT) |
| | :::::{{ping|Richard Nevell (WMUK)}} I will do, if that's alright? -- [[User:There'sNoTime|There'sNoTime]] <sup>([[User talk:There'sNoTime|to explain]])</sup> 14:22, 5 December 2017 (GMT) |
| | ::::::{{ping|There'sNoTime}} Absolutely, you're now an admin. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:44, 12 December 2017 (GMT) |
| | :::::::Cheers, just testing something now -- [[User:There'sNoTime|There'sNoTime]] <sup>([[User talk:There'sNoTime|to explain]])</sup> 11:09, 12 December 2017 (GMT) |
|
| |
|
| ===Voting procedure=== | | == Staff group photo == |
| Voting for the affiliate-selected board seats is now open, and we as a chapter have to place our vote by 31st May by ranking the candidates in order of preference. The two available seats are reserved specifically for candidates chosen by the affiliate organisations. Before making any decision the WMUK board would like to seek input from our own volunteers and members.
| |
|
| |
|
| The candidates are as follows:
| | I've just spotted that the staff group photo is rather out of date - it still features Richard S who hasn't been staff for a couple of years now for example. I suggest someone puts this in the diary for a day when you have a full house in the office and it isn't snowing! [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 17:29, 2 March 2018 (GMT) |
| | :Agreed. 2015 is a long time ago and there have been several staff changes since then. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 21:48, 8 July 2018 (BST) |
| | ::I will try to take one at the Christmas lunch. It's not been easy to get everyone in the same place at the same time! [[User:John Lubbock (WMUK)|John Lubbock (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:John Lubbock (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:44, 5 December 2018 (GMT) |
|
| |
|
| * Frieda Brioschi https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2014/Nominations/Frieda_Brioschi
| | == Wikimedia VLE == |
| * Patricio Lorente https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2014/Nominations/Patricio_Lorente
| |
| * Anders Wennersten https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2014/Nominations/Anders_Wennersten
| |
| * Alice Wiegand https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2014/Nominations/Alice_Wiegand
| |
|
| |
|
| Anyone can ask questions of the candidates by posting on the talk pages of each candidate statement. You can also ask questions of all the candidates by posting to this page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2014/Questions.
| | Is the [http://moodle.wikimedia.org.uk/ Wikimedia VLE] dead? If so, [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Virtual_Learning_Environment information about it] should be updated. |
|
| |
|
| ===Community comments on the candidates=== | | ==Recent changes== |
| If you have any comments on the candidates, or suggestions for the WMUK board as to who you would like the chapter to support, please indicate below. Reasoned comments are preferred, as the candidates are not being selected by popular vote. I would suggest that staff and board members should not post here, and should leave this area free for community comments. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 11:23, 16 April 2014 (BST)
| | Is the wiki going to be updated with the new recent changes interface? [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 11:03, 29 November 2018 (GMT) |
| | ::Hi [[User:Leutha|Leutha]], we would love to update lots of things on the wiki. I hope that once we sort out other things with the site we can get around to this, but we probably need assistance fom people who are expert at MediaWiki. [[User:John Lubbock (WMUK)|John Lubbock (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:John Lubbock (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:31, 2 April 2019 (BST) |
|
| |
|
| ; Comments on Frieda Brioschi
| | == Watchlist broken == |
|
| |
|
| ; Comments on Patricio Lorente | | Nothing is showing on my watchlist. In the box, there is the text: |
| | :Below are the last '''0''' changes in the last '''720''' hours, as of 30 November 2018, 12:26. |
| | Under the box, it says |
| | :No changes during the given period match these criteria. |
| | At [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist|Preferences]], I have the following relevant settings: |
| | *Days to show in watchlist: 30 |
| | *Maximum number of changes to show in watchlist: 250 |
| | *{{tick|12}} Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent |
| | *{{cross|12}} Hide minor edits from the watchlist |
| | *{{cross|12}} Hide bot edits from the watchlist |
| | *{{cross|12}} Hide my edits from the watchlist |
| | *{{cross|12}} Hide edits by anonymous users from the watchlist |
| | *{{cross|12}} Hide edits by logged in users from the watchlist |
| | One of my watched pages is [[Events]], which normally attracts at least one edit each week. But not even the last edit (which was at 12:23, 22 November 2018) is showing. Has there been a MediaWiki config change that would affect this? --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]; [[:wikipedia:User:Redrose64|at English Wikipedia]]) 12:28, 30 November 2018 (GMT) |
| | :Supplemental: I also have the setting |
| | ::{{tick|12}} Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist |
| | :and I made sure that the "Watch this page" checkbox was ticked before I saved; but despite both of those, this page (Engine room) was ''not'' added to [[Special:EditWatchlist]] after I saved the above post. Nor was [[Water cooler]] added after I made [[Special:Diff/80704|this edit]]. This suggests that there seems to be a wider problem. The "watch" star works, but it's an extra step that I don't need to make on other wikis. --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]; [[:wikipedia:User:Redrose64|at English Wikipedia]]) 12:44, 30 November 2018 (GMT) |
| | :I think this relates to the Recent Changes not working, which led to my query aboce. [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 12:48, 30 November 2018 (GMT) |
| | :I'm seeing exactly the same issue with both watchlists and recent changes. I'll ping the mailing list as that gets a bit more traffic these days. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 12:51, 30 November 2018 (GMT) |
| | ::Hi Chris, I'll try to forward this issue on, but it is possible that it is part of the same problem we are having with a lot of our sites at the moment. I'll try to keep you informed when i hear what the problem is.[[User:John Lubbock (WMUK)|John Lubbock (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:John Lubbock (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:14, 30 November 2018 (GMT) |
|
| |
|
| ; Comments on Anders Wennersten
| | Any progress to report on this? [[User:TheOverflow|TheOverflow]] ([[User talk:TheOverflow|talk]]) 06:21, 22 July 2019 (BST) |
| | :I thought I would check recent changes by adding this edit . . . [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 07:34, 19 October 2019 (BST) |
| | ::. . . and then seeing if the edit comes up – which it does not, so I think we are left with the old adage of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Soldier_%C5%A0vejk Good Editor Schweik]] "beg to report there is noting to report". [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 07:47, 19 October 2019 (BST) |
| | :::That this has been outstanding for more than a year doesn't reflect well on the charity: most people would expect Wikimedia UK to be able to make its own wiki work... but I suppose that's not a priority any more. [[User:TheOverflow|TheOverflow]] ([[User talk:TheOverflow|talk]]) 09:05, 29 December 2019 (GMT) |
|
| |
|
| ; Comments on Alice Wiegand
| | == Recent changes to MediaWiki namespace files == |
|
| |
|
| == Updating our terms of use ==
| | Hi all - just a courtesy message letting you know I've made some changes to a couple of MediaWiki namespace files (namely [[MediaWiki:Common.js]]). These [[Special:Diff/82763|changes]] ''affect all users'', and were implemented solely due to function depreciation. Please let me know (preferably on [[:en:User talk:TheresNoTime|my English Wikipedia talk page]]) if there are any issues ~[[User:There'sNoTime|TNT]] (she/her • [[User talk:There'sNoTime|talk]]) 14:58, 5 October 2021 (BST) |
|
| |
|
| In an [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Engine_room#Terms_of_use earlier discussion], [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] noted that the "Terms of use" link at the bottom of every page still directs users to the terms of use page on the WMF Foundation Wiki ([[Foundation:Terms of use]]). Since WMUK services, including the wiki, are now independently hosted, our terms of use need to be modified. I asked for community input on 11th March, and again on 19th, and as there appears to be no volunteer appetite to work on this I have put up some thoughts of my own for discussion.
| | == Installed versions of MediaWiki and PHP are end-of-life == |
|
| |
|
| Please visit [[Terms of use]] and [[Disclaimers]]. I would suggest that detailed comments are left on the talk pages rather than here. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 12:47, 25 April 2014 (BST)
| | The currently installed version of MediaWiki ([[:mw:MediaWiki 1.31|1.31]]) went [[:en:End-of-life_product#Computing|EOL]] on the 30th September 2021 - we should urgently upgrade to the latest LTS version ([[:mw:MediaWiki 1.35|1.35]]), and ideally to the latest stable version ([[:mw:MediaWiki 1.36|1.36]]). |
| : Thanks for posting these. They look broadly good to me. :-) You may want to link to the [[Participation policy]] somewhere in them too (assuming that applies to this wiki as it would an event), and maybe consider asking for feedback from the global community on the document at [[:meta:Talk:Terms of use]]. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:24, 28 April 2014 (BST) | |
| :: Thanks. Have done the first. I'm less sure about asking for feedback on Meta, though, as readers there will be more used to the terms of WMF content sites, whereas we are a different beast - a UK charitable company that works in the same field but is independent of the WMF. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 16:56, 30 April 2014 (BST)
| |
| ::: I'm not sure they're so different, particularly from the community angle, and I think they would have useful comments to make based on their experiences from the process of putting together the WMF T&C. Is there a downside to asking them for their thoughts? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 11:59, 1 May 2014 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Transparency commitments ==
| | We will ''also'' need to upgrade to [[:mw:Compatibility#PHP|PHP]] version 7.3.19 or higher, as our currently installed version ([[Special:Version#sv-software|7.2.30]]) is not supported (and is also EOL). |
|
| |
|
| Our new Strategic goal G2b.2 states that: "''We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector''". See [[Strategy monitoring plan]].
| | Have we previously reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, as I am certain they would happily host this MediaWiki installation? ~[[User:TheresNoTime|TheresNoTime]] <sup>([[User talk:TheresNoTime|to explain!]])</sup> 14:40, 1 November 2021 (GMT) |
|
| |
|
| One of our transparency KPIs is a quarterly narrative to be prepared by the [[Governance Committee]] (Govcom). The narrative has to address "''Transparency compliance as determined by Govcom against published transparency commitments''".
| | == Spam == |
|
| |
|
| We would be interested to hear from the community how Govcom should best address that quarterly task. At present, our 'published transparency commitments' are rather general. Our [[Vision, values and mission|Vision]] (V4) states that "''We are transparent in our operations, both to our communities and more generally to the public''".
| | Hi, yesterday I stumbled upon a site (off-wiki) that had a spam link pointing to a page of this wiki. Having had a closer look I fell off my chair and added wikimedia.org.uk to my [[commons:User:Achim55/Wikis that are abused by spammers|list of spam servers]] as it is highly contaminated. The account creating rate by spambots has increased here to about 1000 per day. The rate of spam page creations (or edits) is the same. I happen to be the one who is holding the high score of blocks on the Commons and thought about offering some help cleaning up this crap but it's impossible. Deleting or at least tagging tens of thousands of pages and accounts while continuously new ones are created is a joke. One could seriously consider to shut down this wiki. If not, following had to be done ASAP |
| | | # Restrict the account generation either by adding a captcha on creation or even by using a closed user group (acc creation disabled by default) |
| A list of more specific commitments might potentially be agreed, which would be easier to measure than a general standard but which could create a tendency to reduce transparency to box-ticking. Measuring many detailed and very specific commitments would also eat up huge amounts of staff and trustee time on a quarterly basis which may not be an efficient way to focus resources on our actual mission.
| | # Get the SBLs running. As I just checked on my tp neither the local nor the global SBL are in effect. And I didn't find a SBL log. |
| | | # A publicly accessible wiki like this one should not be run without any abuse filter, there seems to be no [[Special:AbuseLog]]. |
| Thoughts would be welcome. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 17:52, 6 May 2014 (BST)
| | Pinging [[User:TheresNoTime|Sam]], [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard]] and [[User:Mike Peel|Mike]]. Regards, [[User:Achim55|Achim55]] ([[User talk:Achim55|talk]]) 11:59, 12 August 2022 (BST) |
| | | :Good suggestions, recently raised on https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/EZSPL7QGSVFUCPTBFKRPR4DVZAW3WYDM/ ~[[User:TheresNoTime|TheresNoTime]] <sup>([[User talk:TheresNoTime|to explain!]])</sup> 20:46, 13 August 2022 (BST) |
| :Please refer to [[Talk:Volunteer_committees#Volunteer.3F]] for a concrete example. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:30, 8 May 2014 (BST)
| | :Just noting I've created [[Spam]] [[User:TheresNoTime|TheresNoTime]] ([[User talk:TheresNoTime|talk]]) 19:13, 15 August 2022 (BST) |
| | | ::Sysop action wanted → [[User:Achim55/Spam]]. Cheers, [[User:Achim55|Achim55]] ([[User talk:Achim55|talk]]) 09:44, 10 August 2023 (BST) |
| == Help needed to design surveys ==
| |
| | |
| As a result of our new [[Overview of strategy|Strategy]], we need to be able to measure three new [[Strategy monitoring plan|KPIs]] which depend on annual survey evidence. They are:
| |
| | |
| ===='''An awareness score in an annual national survey of public opinion'''====
| |
| This relates to Strategic goal G1.3: "''We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of Open Knowledge''". This will need a survey of the general public (to be administered by an outside agency).
| |
| | |
| ===='''An annual survey capability score (self-identified)'''====
| |
| This relates to Strategic goal G2a.3: "''WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.''". This will need a survey of WMUK volunteers (to be administered by us).
| |
| | |
| ===='''A transparency score as measured by annual survey'''====
| |
| This relates to Strategic goal G2b.2: "''We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.''". This will need a survey within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charitable sector (probably to be administered by us).
| |
| | |
| It would be good to have two or three volunteers who could take a lead in designing the survey questions, with help from the staff. Any takers, please? --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| : You need to ensure that there is volunteer buy-in for these measures before asking for volunteers to conduct surveys, otherwise you won't get volunteers willing to work on surveys about these measures... [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 22:41, 8 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| ::I think we need a survey to determine if we need these surveys. Volunteers? [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 00:29, 9 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| I'd like to help on this, as it would follow-on well from the survey work I did last year. However I'm now committed to Wikimania work until late August. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 11:28, 9 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == A charter for our volunteer committees ==
| |
| | |
| Govcom made the following recommendation to the Wikimedia UK board in December 2013:
| |
| | |
| {{Blockquote|''<nowiki>[We should]</nowiki> redefine the role and purpose of the non-board committees to give them greater prominence, and if need be re-constitute and re-vitalise them with greater volunteer input to drive forward programmes. At present, the roles and memberships of non-board committees are somewhat unclear, and that has led to atrophy and lack of focus. Board/committee communication needs to be improved, and better board support for the committees’ work is needed. We would hope and expect that this will result in considerably greater community involvement.''}}
| |
| | |
| I have put up a draft charter for discussion at [[Volunteer committees]], and would like to hear what everyone thinks. While it's not actually possible for a charter alone to re-vitalise our committees (bearing in mind it's only people not policy that can ultimate do that), is this a move in the right sort of direction? --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 15:03, 7 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :A minor observation. Better defining the committees will help with focus, however I do not believe there is any evidence that this is the underpinning cause of "atrophy". There are a lot of committees listed by the board of trustees, certainly compared to 3 years ago, but the number of active members<sup>1</sup> who are interested in participating in the affairs of the Chapter has not grown (probably increased by 30-50% in 3 years) in proportion to other measures of growth such as employee numbers (1000%) or levels of WMF funding (300%+). However this is sliced, if we do not have a wealth of members keen to take on the responsibility of joining and pushing the development and activities of each committee, then the few that enjoy supporting the Chapter in this way will be overstretched and likely to burn-out after over-committing themselves.
| |
| :I believe the solution to your perception of atrophy, must be to significantly grow the levels of active members, back before 2012 we were doubling this number every year, so there seems little in the way of prioritizing this key objective or setting ambitious targets for it. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 20:56, 7 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :<small>1—volunteers who are not members will not be allowed take part in committees under the proposed policy.</small>
| |
| ::It is indeed prioritized. Increasing the number of volunteers is a [[Strategy monitoring plan|specific measured KPI]] under our strategic goal G2a.1: ''We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers''. And more active volunteers means more members. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 21:41, 7 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :::Sure, I am aware of the published strategy. The targets do not include any specific targets for membership, such as doubling it, and as the same document notes, active volunteers on Wikimedia projects and events is not the same goal or measurement as increasing the number of paying or active members of the Chapter who might be interested in taking part in Committee meetings.
| |
| :::By the way, I do not think it is fair to claim that there is a KPI that measures the number of active volunteers, if there are actually no published reports of this number this year, and no plans to be any reports on this number for this in the future. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 20:12, 9 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| ::::I'm afraid you have misunderstood the reporting. Volunteer numbers will be reported in the quarter 1 report to the FDC. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 20:18, 9 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :::::All the KPIs on the [[Strategy monitoring plan]] page are going to be published quarterly: that's the whole point. The first quarter's data will be published in the FDC report, in reports to the June Board, and on the wiki. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 21:03, 9 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| ::::::Then yes, this is confusing. I previously thought it had been made clear that the number of active volunteers was no longer going to be measured and the fact that it has not been reported for [[Volunteers/numbers|over six months]] would back that up. Presumably the charity is using a non-standard definition for the dates of Quarter 1; when will this report be available for members? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:33, 9 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :::::::Not sure an exact date has been determined yet, but definitely well before the Board meeting on June 7th. So in few weeks time at the most. The charity's year starts on 1st February, for some historical reason, so the first quarter results will cover the period 1st February to 30 April. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :::::::We used the same dates in 2012-13 and the financial year starts on 1 February. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 21:59, 9 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::Having been the Chair, I'm familiar with the financial year chosen for the charity and I was part of the discussions (more than once) making the decision to stick to February, this need not have been the same quarters now chosen for KPI reporting. Considering the dates of the FDC bid cycle, I would have thought the first quarter within that annual cycle (Quarter 4) could have adopted figures promised in the FDC bid, rather than having a six month gap. Anyway, as has been said many times in the last few years, that's in the past so I'll just wait for the next report to have the KPI based performance measures. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 00:25, 10 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == Charters of Board committees ==
| |
| | |
| I suspect this may be of very limited interest to most, but I am posting here for the sake of transparency. Govcom is considering recommending to the Board some minor changes to the Board committee charters. Details are as follows:
| |
| * [[Audit and Risk Committee charter/Draft]]
| |
| ** [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Audit_and_Risk_Committee_charter%2FDraft&diff=56403&oldid=56401 diff from existing]
| |
| * [[Governance Committee Charter/Draft]]
| |
| ** [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Governance_Committee_Charter%2FDraft&diff=56402&oldid=56375 diff from existing]
| |
| --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:26, 7 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| : Hi Michael. Please can you summarise what the key changes are here? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 22:29, 8 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :: Govcom: chaired by Chair of Board as recommended by Hudson review and approved by Board; general governance advice moved to top of the list to reflect actual workload. ARC: make it clearer that the Treasurer is a member ex officio; slight re-write of 'observer' wording, for consistency with Govcom; appointment of Chair to be ratified by the Board; meetings should be called by the Chair of the Committee. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 14:47, 11 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == Role of the Water cooler ==
| |
| | |
| Looking at posts over the last month or so on the [[Water cooler]], rather than being a place to "discuss our external projects and activities", it seems to have become an effectively passive events announcements and official notices page, rather than its historical use as an unofficial volunteer community discussion forum. As any discussion of interest is invariably now moved to the Engine Room, would it be sensible to change the notice at the top of the page accurately to reflect the way the page is now used as a landing page to promote and post news of events of the charity? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:28, 8 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :Your post immediately above this one is definitely project-related and would be an ideal community post for the Water Cooler. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 11:53, 8 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| ::Thanks for the observation. I am unsure if you have any view on my question?
| |
| ::An absence of recent discussion by unpaid volunteers on the Water cooler, indicates to me that recent changes to how this is controlled have resulted in this significantly decreasing its value as a communications channel for active volunteers. Particularly when compared to how lively it was a year or two ago, as can be seen in the archives. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:45, 9 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :::Since the split though the quality of the discussion has increased, which was the aim of the split. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 23:11, 10 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| ::::My question was about the notice. Do you have any view on that? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:51, 11 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :::::Yes, I have a view on the notice: it correctly sets out the scope of the Water Cooler. Answering your actual question is not possible as it includes a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question fallacious presupposition] as a rhetorical tool. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 13:18, 11 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| ::::::Thanks for the feedback. It is never my intention to engage in false political or meaningless rhetoric which cannot be supported. Which actual assertion or perceived presupposition do you believe is false, and makes answering it impossible? There are several possible that might be read into it, and I can certainly support the assertions such as the quote from the notice, historical usage and how it is currently not being used by volunteers who are not trustees, employees or contractors in the last month or so. I really wish to avoid wikilawyering, but if you think it is necessary I can unbundle it into a series of more direct questions supported by non-controversial evidence. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:23, 11 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == Where can I find 2014 programmes as opposed to just budget? ==
| |
| | |
| I was wondering where last year's ideas for activities around this year's centenary of the First World War had gone, or what outcomes there had been in this area even if it had been reduced, considering there was originally '''[[2013_Activity_Plan#World_Wars_I_and_II_project|£20,000]]''' agreed by the trustees to be spent on it. Checking [http://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=2014_Activity_Plan/GLAM_Outreach&oldid=54330 2014 Activity Plan/GLAM Outreach] I was surprised that this document contains no details of any GLAM projects, in fact it only appears to link to a budget for 2013 and the section on "timelines" remains blank apart from the note ''please add details''.
| |
| | |
| Where can I find a tangible 2014 plan for GLAM, with details that can be measured as opposed to reports of stuff that has already happened? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:07, 9 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :Based on the fact that it has now been a week, this appears to be a "non-success".
| |
| :I suggest that the board of trustees consider changing the Activity Plan wording so that there is a realistic expectation given to members that when we discuss plans, the charity means standard budget forecasts, reports of what happened in the previous quarter and actions (not plans) for the coming quarter.
| |
| :These would normally be called "reports" and in addition one would expect the CEO to ensure a schedule spanning the funded programmes is maintained (the next 12 months in the case of this charity) and a work breakdown with associated measurable outcomes. The board of trustees may find this a useful strategic discussion at some point soon, in order to help provide the quality of oversight that most large national charities would expect. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:21, 15 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ::While it has been almost a week since your question, our GLAM Organiser is part-time. A considerable amount of his time has been spent on helping with FDC reporting for Q1 so you may have to wait for an answer. When he is next in I will ask Jonathan Cardy when he has time to answer. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:49, 15 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :::I was expecting either a link to the plan so I could look at it, or a statement saying there is no plan. My question was not intended to be directed at anyone, I certainly am not asking employees direct questions. This could be answered by the CEO, any trustee as they follow and review these documents, or another unpaid volunteer up to date on programme reporting, who might be comfortable answering.
| |
| :::As it happens I have been in discussion with Jonathan on other matters in this time. I note that the Activity Plan does not name Jonathan as being responsible for a plan, and that the supporting detailed document says "Daria Cybulska with delegated support from Jonathan Cardy" which I was aware of, but had made no assumptions about. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:09, 15 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| ::::Likewise Daria and the CEO have been extraordinarily busy in particular with drafting the FDC report. I'm afraid an answer will have to wait until staff workloads are more manageable. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :::::Thanks. I am sorry that the last week had been a bad time. Again, it was never my intention for this to be seen a question directed to an employee.
| |
| :::::{{ping|MichaelMaggs}} Would a trustee or a knowledgeable volunteer like to answer my question? It seems a simple and short one if anyone knows the answer. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:57, 15 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :It has now reached 2 weeks since my question "Where can I find a tangible 2014 plan" was raised. I am sorry if this has been seen as a trick question of some sort, it was not intended that way. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == Proposed amendments to update charity's security and data protection policies: Revised Deadline of 5th June!==
| |
| | |
| Hi all,
| |
| | |
| I am going to be working over the next few days on amending the charity's policies that refer to processing and storage of personal information to bring them up to date or better reflect actual operational practice. What I will do is create sub-pages of the existing policies under a 'proposed revisions' page and then post those links under my posting here.
| |
| | |
| I would welcome help by either discussion on the broader themes that may interest our community (balancing the requirements of the law with flexible working and being able to be transparent) here, and specific suggestions for amendments or questions for why I have made amendments on the talk pages of the proposed revision drafts.
| |
| | |
| If there is anything I've missed I'm open to hearing about it - some gaps I know we need to fill in the coming months are a data retention policy in line with the Foundation's and a broader statement on data governance and risk which I hope to develop with GovComm. Anything else the (many!) savvy types on privacy and data issues want to highlight - please do. I will try and drop a line linking back here on talk pages to those who I know have expressed interest in these issues in the past.
| |
| | |
| This is quite a bit of work so I'll be pushing on with it on top of other things over the next two weeks with a view to propose amended versions to the Board in June by the end of next week (May 23rd) as I will be on annual leave the following week (27th - 30th May)
| |
| | |
| If there are policies that are causing obvious concern however I'm prepared to hold back on those to extend the discussion period so please do make that point if you need to. Lets try and keep things to Wiki but if you're concerned I'm not responding promptly please email me (katherine.bavage[@]wikimedia.org.uk).
| |
| | |
| Thanks all - links to proposed amends pages to follow! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:44, 13 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| : After discussion with Michael as Chair he has agreed that these changes, while important, do not need to be submitted in order to meet deadlines for Board papers, because the board can review and approve/refuse recommended changes on wiki around the meeting rather than at it. This does not preclude there being more high level consideration of data governance matters at board or committee meetings in future - indeed I am envisioning there will be - but that we need to amend these now to ensure the charity remains in compliance with the law and staff are supported to use best practice in carrying out their work.
| |
| : I am therefore proposing an extended deadline, both because it allows more time for community comment should there be some additional, and because it will allow me more time on my return from annual leave* to put in place some completed supporting documentation and other changes. If there are comments made in my absence I am sure other members of staff will respond to requests for info where they can, and of course I'll pick up on my return.
| |
| : * I am on annual leave 26th May - 30th May inclusive and will be back answering emails and working on this following 2nd June. [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:33, 23 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ::There is no issue with this decision, however are two lines of logic to this which may need the board to revisit trustee processes, so I'm separating them:
| |
| ::# ''Out of meeting decision making'' - As I recall, a key reason that the board introduced votes of trustees outside of board meetings was to easily enable trustees to make decisions on policy changes in advance of a board meeting. This nicely reduces the workload for meetings and trustees can take a more relaxed approach to reviewing material and asking questions (because on-wiki votes can run for a month). In practice, Operations then consider the decision made, however the legal ratification has to still occur at the scheduled board meeting, for technical reasons more than common-sense ones. From what I have seen this year, I am unsure how well this is being practically applied by the board, or if it is particularly helpful if the board has become less proactive than in years past.
| |
| ::# ''CEO authority'' - There is a division between operational procedures/detailed policy, and policies that require authorization by the board of trustees. Having delegated a scope of authority and responsibility to the CEO, practical decisions at the operational level should be up to the CEO, which may include changing practices to adopt a draft policy. He is then held to account for outcomes of whatever practical decisions he has made in-between board meetings. In the case of data policies, there may well be immediate need to make operational decisions against currently authorized policy, however this would be the difference between handling an incident and correctly communicating it, and legally agreeing how the articles are implemented by the charity.
| |
| ::In the second issue of CEO authority, I doubt that the way that authority has been delegated to the CEO makes the boundaries very clear, this is not necessarily a "non-success", as within a slowly maturing organization it is often better to let bureaucracy be changed by experience rather than dubious hypothesis. Certainly, wiki-lawyering it to death would be unhelpful. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:55, 23 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===Page links===
| |
| * [[Access control approval guidelines/Proposed revision June 2014]]
| |
| * [[Annual security audit checklist/Proposed revisions June 2014]]
| |
| * [[Data Breach Policy/Proposed revisions June 2014]]
| |
| * [[Remote Access Policy/Proposed revision June 2014]]
| |
| * [[Training Policy and Control List/Proposed revisions June 2014]]
| |
| | |
| == International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance part two ==
| |
| | |
| Hello everyone. I wanted to bring this back on the agenda. For clarity, I initially [[Water_cooler/2013#International_Principles_on_the_Application_of_Human_Rights_to_Communications_Surveillance|proposed that Wikimedia UK gets involved with this somehow here]] last year. The reason I am bringing this up again is because the [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/09/opposing-mass-surveillance-on-the-internet/ Wikimedia Foundation has announced that it has signed the principles]. Essentially, the principles make a statement against mass surveillance of internet users. Again, I think that this is in scope and showing support for these principles is important. I hope that we can revisit this issue. You can [https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/TEXT read the principles here]. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:19, 14 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :I am surprised and disappointed that this is being lobbied for a second time. The text has not changed or improved since the previous discussion [[Water_cooler/2013#International_Principles_on_the_Application_of_Human_Rights_to_Communications_Surveillance|here]]. The document will be offensive to many, as LGBT minorities have been explicitly excluded from the "Legitimate Aim" section, despite "sexual orientation" being mentioned in the unenforceable preamble. Were the board of trustees to choose to support this document they would be going against the spirit of, and possibly be in breach of, "Wikimedia UK as Service Provider" in [[Diversity and Equalities Policy]] and value 5 of [[Vision, values and mission]].
| |
| | |
| :I am not aware of the WMF seeking any consultation with the community. I would be happy to be provided with some links if this has happened. I have posted the same request on the WMF blog post.
| |
| | |
| :I have alerted the Wikimedia LGBT group [[meta:Talk:Wikimedia_LGBT#Opposing_Mass_Surveillance_on_the_Internet_-_apart_from_LGBT_minorities|here]]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:33, 14 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ::For those interested, Roshni Patel of the Wikimedia Foundation addresses Fae's concerns directly:
| |
| ::{{quote|"Hi Fae,<p>Prior to signing on to the Necessary and Proportionate Principles, we consulted the advocacy advisors. You can find that [https://www.mail-archive.com/advocacy_advisors@lists.wikimedia.org/msg00115.html here].<p>The list of prohibited discriminations under the “Legitimate Aim” principle is non-exclusive and includes “other status.” Given that sexual orientation was listed in the preamble, it would certainly be included under “other status”.}}
| |
| ::I am certain that if LGBT groups were directly excluded the Wikimedia Foundation would not have signed the principles. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:54, 15 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :::Patel has given a tangential reply rather than a direct response to the issues. I'm afraid Patel's assumption is unfounded, from this it can be seen that there has been no community consultation where interested groups, such as Wikimedia LGBT, might be allowed to have a voice before the WMF made this irrevocable action. It should be noted that Patel's post is not a statement for the WMF. Though she is being employed or sponsored by the WMF as a 'Fellow', her profile on the Foundation website is quick to ensure that nothing she publishes represents the WMF, unless explicitly stated otherwise. I will be responding, probably later today.
| |
| :::With regard to your being "certain that if LGBT groups were directly excluded the Wikimedia Foundation would not have signed the principles", you are welcome to hold those beliefs, however I am discussing the blog post and can only go by what is written there and the words of the document that the WMF has now committed itself to. Based on advice I have been given on the Advocacy Advisors email list, the WMF should follow [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline their own consultation policy], and this appears to have explicitly not happened in this instance.
| |
| :::Wikimedia UK does not ''need'' to have an opinion on these principles, the charity can just say "good work" or similar. Again I am disappointed to see this being lobbied for so hard here, when the previous community discussion was, at best, controversial. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:20, 15 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :::: I have not been following the discussion which led to the WMF signing up to these principles and don't intend to go trawling over loads of discussions to find out who was consulted and who thought what. The WMF will no doubt have had good reasons for wanting to sign up. However I also feel that a set of principles which has a section on legitimate use of surveillance and specifically omits sexual orientation from a list of exclusions is very seriously defective. WMUK should consider whether it is in the best interests of the charity to sign up to a set of principles which, for example, the Ugandan government could comply with while undertaking surveillance for the purpose of targeting gay men for arrest and imprisonment. Since our signature is not needed on these principles I will take a lot of persuading that they are a good thing for us to do. [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 17:33, 17 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == Trustee Expenses ==
| |
| :''Details posted on the engine room in response to a request at [[Engine room/2014#Attendees at the Wikimedia Conference 2014?]]
| |
| | |
| As the previous discussion has been manually archived [[/2014#Attendees at the Wikimedia Conference 2014?|here]], I have created this second thread so that the costs which are due to be reported by 22 May (2 days time) can be linked and may be discussed by volunteers on this noticeboard. It should be noted that some of the expenses have been declared on [[Expenses 2013-2014]], it cannot be presumed to be a complete declaration. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:42, 20 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :Hello Fae! I was going to create a new post, don't worry. I have posted the Q1 expenses at [[Expenses 2014-2015]]. The board are going to be discussing what level of expenses is appropriate - the policy as written needs more clarity. The general feeling is that expenses will be dealt with using a quarterly summary against named persons, split into appropriate groups of travel, accommodation, subsistence, per diems, etc. The board will be discussing this on 7 June but I don't want to pre-empt their decision. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:41, 21 May 2014 (BST) | |
| | |
| I have changed the title back to be more accurate.
| |
| | |
| What was requested, and committed to, in the archived discussion was "When the total costs are published, could someone add a link here so that future volunteers can find it more easily?" The total costs as defined earlier in the same discussion were "the costs of sending 8 people to this conference", not just those that happen to have been trustees at the time. Again, this is not a request from me to any employee. If the WMUK treasurer wants to give a summary of these costs as a follow unpaid volunteer, that would be cool. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:55, 21 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :I have changed the title back because the page covers more than the Wikimedia Conference (and using the same title as a previous thread it would have made the information more difficult to find once archived) and have added a link back to the Berlin discussion at the start of this section. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:50, 21 May 2014 (BST) | |
| ::You may wish to think about an accurate title rather than simply reverting, the original point of this thread is not addressed by an update of [[Expenses 2014-2015|Trustee Expenses]], as that would only obscure what the actual total costs of sending attendees to the conference was, which would not be a benefit with regard to transparency and could not be considered a matter of privacy for any individual. It might be an idea to follow the BRD principle on the Engine room, it works well on the projects. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:12, 21 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :::Perhaps it would be best to avoid using [[:en:WP:3LA|3LAs]] in public conversations without at the very least a link explaining that BRD means [[:en:WP:BRD|Bold Revert Discuss]]. People more familiar with say the conventions and discourse of Wikimedia Commons than that of Wikipedia may find that such jargon is not immediately accessible. So perhaps we should try not to exclude people where a few extra key strokes would makes things clearer ;-) [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| ::::Well, being the Engine room, I suspect that all likely readers of this will know it is 'bold' rather than 'block'. Being a supporter of plain English and mindful of international projects, I have designed wiki tools to help convert wiki acronyms to phrases, however the context matters with these things. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:57, 22 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :Hi Fae. I'm sorry, I misunderstood your previous post and thought you were asking for trustee expenses. I'll see what I can pull up with regard to total cost of the conference and post it in a new section here. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:57, 22 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == Non-renewal of our fundraiser agreement ==
| |
| | |
| Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has given us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s fundraiser. Wikimedia UK has written an open letter to Sue regarding this decision, a copy of which can be found [[:File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non-renewal.pdf|here]]. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:03, 21 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| For those wishing to copy parts of the text to use in discussion, I have created a wiki version of the letter. [[Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner|This can be found here]]. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:27, 21 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == 2014 Annual General Meeting ==
| |
| | |
| Ongoing preparations for this year's AGM can be found at [[2014 Annual General Meeting]] and the linked pages for anyone who wants to follow or join in. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 12:37, 27 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ==BBC article - Wikipedia and health==
| |
| Article [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27586356 here] and well judged comments from Stevie. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 00:51, 28 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| :Thank you, Philafrenzy. For you, and others interested, the story also ran on the [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2639910/Do-NOT-try-diagnose-Wikipedia-90-medical-entries-inaccurate-say-expertsDo.html Mail], [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10857468/Dont-diagnose-yourself-on-Wikipedia-doctors-warn.html Telegraph] and [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dont-use-wikipedia-for-medical-advice-scientists-warn-after-errors-found-9441686.html Independent]. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:55, 28 May 2014 (BST)
| |
| ::But where do doctors get ''their'' information? That is the question. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/ [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 11:00, 28 May 2014 (BST)
| |
Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent
Hide minor edits from the watchlist
