Talk:Timeline
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Changes
| Milestone | Date Planned*/Achieved |
|---|---|
| Start publicising the chapter and getting supporters | 29 August 2008 |
| Close list of candidates, deadline for candidate statements, begin public questioning of candidates | 13 September 2008 |
| End questions, begin voting | 20 September 2008 |
| Finish voting, construct board | 27 September 2008 |
| Submit draft Memorandum and Arts to Chapter Committee, begin preparing application for Companies House | 4 October 2008 |
| Receive OK from Chapter Committee, Submit application to Companies House, Start accepting applications for guarantor membership, Begin preparing charitable status application to the HMRC | 11 October 2008? |
| Receive notice of incorporation from Companies House, Announce AGM, Start processing applications for guarantor membership received up to this date, Begin negotiation with WMF, Submit charitable status application to the HMRC | 25 October 2008? |
| Hold AGM | 25 November 2008? |
| Conclude negotiations with WMF, sign contract | ? (Possibly before the AGM, possibly after) |
| Receive tax exempt status | ? (Possibly before the AGM, possibly after) |
| Open bank account | Within a fortnight of receiving tax exempt status |
*The further in the future a planned date is, the more liable it is to be changed.
- I'd like to keep things separate even if they happen on the same day, so that we can mark them as completed properly. Just because we plan for them to all happen at the same time doesn't mean they will. --Tango 18:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- It just makes clear that everything except the first element of the list will happen after that first thing happens. In any case, that wasn't my main change in this. I've pushed the AGM as far forward as it could go. Possibly some kind of compromise would be better, but I thought representing the other extreme was worthwhile. It certainly doesn't need to wait for charitable status and the WMF contract. I'm also not sure dates are particularly useful beyond the election period since most of the events are outside of our control. --cfp 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Just noticed a problem with your timetable - we can't announce the AGM before processing the membership applications, since we won't have any members to announce it to at that time. --Tango 00:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Suggested change
How about:
| Planned date* | Milestone | Achieved? |
|---|---|---|
| Start publicising the chapter and getting supporters | 29 August 2008 | 
|
| Close board member candidate list; deadline for candidate statements; start public questioning of candidates | 13 September 2008 | |
| End of public questioning of board member candidates; begin voting | 20 September 2008 | |
| End of board member candidate voting; assemble board | 27 September 2008 | |
| Submit Draft Memorandum and Arts to Chapter Committee | 4 October 2008 | |
| Submit application to Companies House | 11 October 2008 | |
| Receive notice of incorporation from Companies House | ? 25/26 October 2008 | |
| Begin negotiation with WMF | ||
| Submit application to HMRC for tax-exempt status | ||
| Begin accepting applications for guarantor membership | ||
| Conclude negotiations and sign contract with WMF | ? 10 November 2008 | |
| Receive tax exempt status from HMRC | ? 10 November 2008 | |
| Begin opening bank account | ||
| Finish opening bank account | ? 25 November 2008 | |
| Begin accepting applications for supporting membership | ||
| Begin accepting donations | ||
| 95% of received applications for guarantor membership processed | ? 3 December 2008 | |
| Announce date and location of AGM | ||
| 100% of received applications for guarantor membership processed | ? 3 January 2009 | |
| Hold AGM |
*The further in the future a planned date is, the more liable it is to be changed.
Some comments:
exists if need be (hopefully not)- Should the candidate board members have a couple of days before their statements are required after the list is closed?
- Perhaps a en:Gantt Chart would be better than a table?
Mike Peel 20:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- If you want two columns, I would have "Date Planned" and "Date Achieved", then we can not only see how far we've got, but if we're on schedule. My original plan had a week to put statements together, but Geni and I discussed it on IRC and decided that wasn't necessary. As long as we make the deadlines clear (once they're finalised), it doesn't really matter. I suggested a Gantt chart and everybody laughed! I think it's a good idea, though. --Tango 22:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also to avoid wasting WMF's time, maybe we should get charitable status and a bank account before we start negotiating with WMF? --cfp 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why, registering with HMRC is just a formality, really (the checks are far less stringent than with the charity commission), and getting a bank account shouldn't be too difficult (time consuming, maybe, but we'll get there). I think it's beneficial to get the contract with WMF sorted ASAP since it's required for us to actually refer to ourselves as Wikimedia UK and describe ourselves as a chapter of the WMF. Until we can do that, we can't really do anything beyond getting set up (including help with the Wikimania bid, which would be good sooner rather than later). --Tango 00:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Credit-worthiness issues
re-sectioned as this has become it's own topic
Ook. It's just that James F was expressing some worries about how easy it'd actually be for us to get the bank account due to credit rating issues. (Mine is fine, but since so many of the candidates are young, there's certainly scope for worrying, though I think uni students are usually OK with credit ratings if they give their parent's address.) We should also be better placed because we'll be a charity before applying for a bank account. But nonetheless, there's certainly a risk at least that it'll be non-trivial and it'd be foolish to ignore it completely. --cfp 01:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- It may well be non-trivial to achieve, but I'm confident it is achievable. We don't need an overdraft or anything like that, so credit ratings aren't too important (they may still check because of the very minor credit that's involved in cheques and things). My credit rating, while not very long, is pretty good, I think (the only poor thing is the lack of any real income, but the bank account won't hold my money, so I can't see why that would matter). --Tango 02:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Let's make things interesting, shall we? A pint says we can have a bank account set up by Christmas. You in? --Tango 11:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Of course, I agree completely that we need to have realistic expectations, but a "doomed before we start" attitude isn't going to work either. The trick is to strike a happy balance between optimism and realism. I don't know the details of the problems you had, but I really don't believe there are problems setting up a bank account for a small charity that can't be solved given two years. The previous incarnation made it's own problems, from what I can tell. --Tango 12:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That's supposed to discourage us, James? To stop us from working towards this? I fail to see where that comment actually fits in with constructive discussion, to be honest. --Skenmy 11:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- You didn't offer advice, you just offered pessimism. If you have any advice, we would welcome it (although I see no evidence that you ever managed to overcome any of the problems you had, so I doubt you do). --Tango 12:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Identifying risks and planning mitigation strategies is an important part of any project planning. In helping us identify risks JamesF was certainly being helpful, even if it is not something we wished to hear. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by further 1.0/2.0 antagonism, so lets all assume good faith and "play nice". I'm going to go and talk to a few banks on Monday to clarify this and investigate the extent to which our proposed mitigation strategy of getting charitable status first will work. --cfp 13:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- JamesF didn't actually help identify risks, he just said it might not be easy. If he detailed what went wrong the first time it might actually be helpful. We have no way to know if charitable status will help solve the problems because we don't know what the problems are. Good luck with the banks, though, I was going to suggest that as one of the first things to do after forming the board, but there's no reason not to do it sooner - it would be good to know which bank will offer us the best account. We need easy access to our money (a cheque book could come in handy, cards are probably less necessary), no (or minimal) fees, if possible the option to set up direct debits (by far the best way of getting repeat donations, including membership fees), and anything else you can think of (that's all I can think of). --Tango 14:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- You should read more carefully. :-) In response to cfp's comment that it is "foolish to ignore [credit worthiness] completely" when considering people for the new Board, you said:
- It may well be non-trivial to achieve, but I'm confident it is achievable [...] credit ratings aren't too important
- ... to which I highlighted that this impression may be wrong, and that it was exactly this impression that we had before starting Wikimedia UK.
- In terms of hard advice, everyone on the new Board (not just the Treasurer and Chair or whomever) will need to be able to answer affirmatively to all of the following (roughly, and off the top of my head; some of the metrics may be off):
- Are you at least over 21?
- Have you had for at least 12 months a salaried, UK-based job paid through PAYE into a UK-based bank?
- Do you have a history of obtaining, then paying off, debt, without any "blemishes" (missed payments, defaults, etc.)?
- Do you have more assets than debts (ignoring mortgage)?
- It's not great that this is required, but it's how life is. I'm not suggesting that each prospective Board member "prove" their credit rating (a screen-grab of Experian or whatever), but this is a very serious criterion, and one which a nascent company is unable to overcome if not understood.
- James F. (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- You should read more carefully. :-) In response to cfp's comment that it is "foolish to ignore [credit worthiness] completely" when considering people for the new Board, you said:
I would suggest considering a Co-operative Bank Community Directplus bank account,[1] which offers nearly free banking [2] to "charities, community groups, voluntary organisations". I think it is a fully featured telephone/post/internet account, very similar to a Co-operative Bank Business Account which I have used by post/telephone for years. They are familiar with community "Company limited by guarantee", which should make life easier. I've looked at the application form [3], and it seems you only need to list account signatories (not all directors), so it looks like only these would be credit-scored - so only the older directors with established good banking records could be put down as signatories. If opening an account remains difficult, I could add my name; as a long established Co-operative Bank Business customer and director, that should help ease things. I'm a bit reticent in becoming too involved, as I don't really have the spare time, but if that was the only way to pass a banking hurdle I would. Rwendland 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)