Talk:Representing Wikimedia UK

Some comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I understand it these "rules" go back some way. I think I can safely speak for all of our staff when I say that volunteers are, and should be, the heart of our organisation. There's certainly no drive to keep things away from volunteers, and there's no desire on the part of staff to "keep things among ourselves". As an aside, if there's anything related to my role or the work that I'm doing that isn't on wiki but anyone has any questions about, please do let me know and I'll be more than happy to help. The same applies to anyone wanting to working with me on anything, or wanting me to work with them. --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This draft policy doesn't seem to prohibit volunteers from representing the chapter and using chapter branded stationery and email addresses, etc.. It just says they need the chapter's permission to do that, which is absolutely right. You can't represent someone without their permission - that goes against the very definition of representation. The policy should probably give an explicit and very simple process for getting the relevant permission - granting such permission should probably be a job for Jon, and can be done by just emailing him with a brief explanation of what you want do while calling yourself a representative of the chapter and (as long the volunteer in question is reasonably well known to the chapter and it doesn't sound like they're planning to do anything that would harm the chapter) he can just email back "go ahead" and the job is done. --Tango (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tango is completely right, from my point of view. This is what we want this to be - not a policy, but a process by which we can keep track of things. The real thing that made me panic was Harry's business cards - the disclaimer on the back states "Wikimedia UK itself can be contacted at info@wikimedia.org.uk or via http://uk.wikimedia.org. Note that Wikimedia UK does not control the contents of Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects". Perhaps I have an early draft, but nowhere on the card does it mention Harry's volunteer status. Certainly, if I was handed this card, I would assume that the volunteer who handed it to me represented Wikimedia UK and that that volunteer was authorised to enter into agreements. We've already had three or four law firms this year contact us about BLP issues, and Wikimedia France are involved in something of an ongoing struggle to prove to the courts that they have no control over Wikipedia. I agree with Fae and Harry in that more of our volunteers should have wikimedia.org.uk email addresses and more should have the option of official business cards if they are going to make good use of them - but we need to know who is doing what, we need to investigate how likely it is for us to be sued if (for example) an "official volunteer" is sued as part of a content dispute. We also need to check the business cards first, and we should be paying for them out of WMUK funds - not putting a volunteer out of pocket. If any volunteer thinks they could do with business cards, please ask for them and tell us why - someone will no doubt approve them - but the key part is keeping the office in the loop.

As to the comments on what domains we hold: yes, that information should be on the public wiki; the only reason it isn't is to try and keep this wiki focussed on our goals, rather than the dull work that the chapter does behind the scenes (insurance policies, pensions, supplier details etc). We can transfer some of this stuff over to the public wiki without any problems though. I hope this helps explain things. Richard Symonds (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. I certainly need new business cards as the phone number on my current ones does not work and it would make sense to have these well in time for Wikimania. As well as trustees and staff, maybe we can email, or IRC, a few highly active volunteers who happen to have lots of meetings on our behalf, if they think they would use/benefit from some cards (off the top of my head, Robin, John C., Harry, Rock Drum and Brian are good candidates but as I said before, some may be happy with standard (reusable) blanks that they can simply write an email address or mobile number on; I'd explain how much they cost at the same time so the volunteers can assess if it is worth it). --Fæ (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I should note that my business cards predate the office in its current form (and my use of blank WMUK business cards predates the existence of the office). It's also worth noting that the majority of those I've given out have been to attendees at outreach events (the main purpose for which I acquired them) and other Wikimedians. When I do give cards to representatives of other organisations (and when I deal with representatives of other organisations in general), I'm always at pains to stress that I can't commit WMUK to anything without running it past the board or an individual trustee first. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That applies to me too. I'm a GLAM volunteer subject to the same principles, and any significant commitment needs to be covered by an agreed proposal or grant definition. It's probably doubly true for a trustee. :-) --Fæ (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Official emails in practice

I have added:

"Email correspondence confirming agreements or making commitments on behalf of Wikimedia UK with external partners or contacts must have staff or board members copied in for information and advance review if involving or interpreting significant funding commitments."

It's not great wording, but the point is that I want any volunteer who is leading partnerships with other organizations or creating siginifant outreach events to be free to correspond about these matters with others. Where someone is making a commitment that may create a risk for the charity, then the board needs a clear mechanism to demonstrate oversight. Any email that makes a significant commitment (such as covering £250 for lunch for an event or agreeing an external press release involving WMUK) ought to be copied to staff or trustees, though I would see point in copying on emails that only confirm policy or an existing funding agreement. For example we do cover travel costs for people coordinating or facilitating events, saying that in an email and pointing to our policy is fine for any volunteer to handle on their own. --Fæ (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)