Talk:Agenda 9Feb13
Friday evening meal?
It would be good if we could gather for a meal on Friday evening (8th feb) before the meeting. Both me and Doug will be traveling down earlier on Friday. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Items for the agenda
The deadline defined by the Secretary for changes to the agenda is today, so I am putting this in against that deadline though I note the significant absence of reports from other trustees, so I guess this has now fallen by the wayside and is no longer expected in line with the last meeting when the Chair decided that trustee reports will not have time granted in the meeting.
As I have had problems getting matters on the last board meeting agenda, I will instead leave these notes here for the skill and discretion of the Chair, with no expectation that these points below for the meeting will have a meeting item. I suggest that either I, or someone else, can raise them at any appropriate point during the meeting:
- Board agreement for staff pay rises and bonuses.
- Agreement of the top five KPIs for WMUK
- Quarterly numbers in membership over the last 12 months have not been reported. I believe there has been a significant drop over the year when the target was to increase. This must be reported and tracked as a KPI for the CEO to support the 5 year strategy.
- Quarterly numbers of active volunteers over the last 12 months. I believe this has been far below required targets for the 5 year strategy, possibly static. This must be reported and tracked as a KPI for the CEO to support the 5 year strategy.
- Evidence required for addressing documented Risks and Actions before they are considered closed.
- Placing identified risks below the water margin if they have no mitigation plan or corrective action plan.
- Tracking against agreed KPIs and plans in staff reports. Current reports only report what happened, not what failed to happen as was planned in the last quarterly report. Per "providing progress against key objectives" for the trustees as a top level requirement.
- Deadlines for accepting amendments for draft board minutes, and deadlines for publishing board meeting minutes.
- Prompt open publication of audits and reviews on wiki for matters of public concern and agreement as to which require board of trustee acceptance before publication and which do not.
- Trustee and staff use of wikimedia.org.uk email addresses to be limited to making an official comment on behalf of the chapter in the role of trustee or within a defined staff role.
- Agreement on periodic Trustee DOI audit/review.
- Agreement of defined Board of Trustees vote procedures.
- Agreement for trustees to agree policies and policy changes, but not detailed work work instructions.
- Numbering and tracking actions against meetings in the minutes.
- GLAM Committee has not formed or met, I propose it is considered defunct as there are no other volunteers willing to lead it since I stepped back and became an observer.
- Chapters Conference attendees from WMUK should be agreed to give time to plan travel.
- Staff reports remain pdf files rather than on-wiki documents, making them much harder to read or comment on. The default should be to maximize openness and transparency—open source, openly published and open to feedback.
The following explanatory note should be entered into these meeting minutes with a reference against vote (number not given), if necessary I shall read them out to be minuted, as they were deleted from the currently draft minutes of board meeting no.9 and consigned to the discussion page.
- My nay was in the context of underpinning concerns of taking a heavily contractual and legal approach to future GLAM WIR projects. There is a definite need to protect trademarks, the Wikimedia "brand" and WMF word marks, however the majority of other potential issues of reputational risk are probably better addressed by policy and friendly comprehensive guidelines so that institutions and volunteers have no doubt how best practice for WIR projects, partnerships and joint funding may work, particularly when there are serious failures or exposures. At the end of the day, there is nobody here we would ever sue for damages, and we are free to withdraw funding at any point, or where there are no funds being used, take a project off our "official" register of approved projects, should that be the key issue. There is a danger that we are shifting to unnecessary bureaucracy that will drive great open knowledge projects away from the chapter and the support of the Wikimedia movement and volunteer network.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note that I haven't defined any deadline for changes to the agenda - the agenda is currently set by the chair, and I don't think there's a deadline for changes (although the deadline for reports as set by Chris was today). My understanding of our current approach to reports is that they contain 'for information' items, with items requiring discussion/decision belonging on the main agenda, which strikes me as a very sensible approach. There is an agenda item for questions about items in the reports, which hopefully everyone will have read in advance of the meeting.
- On your point about the Chapters Conference - that's already in the agenda under 'Representatives at Wikimedia Conference 2013'. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)