Talk:Main Page

See also: Talk:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Timeline

Comments

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. 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.

In line with this, 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.

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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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 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.~~~~ Geni 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

election dates

Currently looking at sept 29th with last call for candiates sept 27th.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. 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.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 Companies House’s WebCHeck. – 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. 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. Gordo 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on Wiki Information Network - not much of a 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? 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). --Tango 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia France appears to be set up under the name "Wikimedia France" - see here AndrewRT 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Germany is set up as "Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens" - see here 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. --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. --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. 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 [1], [2] and [3]) Also there is no milestone to register the company with the Charity Commission ([4] and [5]), 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[6] (see also [7]) that would probably be ideal for the company, and save work. 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.) 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. Rwendland 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I prepare UK charity accounts professionally and I think your ball park £500-£1000 is about right. 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. --Tango 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From [8]: "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 [9] "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." 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!). --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 [10] 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 [11] to gain these advantages. 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. 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. --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! Rwendland 11:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

talkpage message

As a UK based editor you might be interested in 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.~~~~

userpage sign

At this point needs to be big bigger than a userbox.Geni 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please help with forming the new Wikimedia UK chapter

• We may wish to make this bigger. I almost didn't notice it. Anthøny 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, way too small :P. How about this? Anonymous101 10:43, 2 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

*en *simple *Cy *Sco

• Sco (Irish)

*gd (Scottish Gaelic *gv (manx) *kw (cornish)

• Wiktionary
• en
• simple
• Cy
• ga

• • 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 the wub "?!" 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I have time tomorrow I'll write up a brief article for the Signpost, I'll probably post a link here for people to check/discuss. the wub "?!" 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... Mike Peel 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"we also welcome" perhaps?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) --Tango 23:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the risk of confusion is high enough to worry.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. --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.

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.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). --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. --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. --Tango 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Companies Act 2006 caused some changes to the MoA and AoA - at least for charities.[12] I wonder if it would be best to start from the latest Charity Commission models, for the final version at least? [13] 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). --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 ([14]). --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, Privatemusings 21:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

you can see sort of what I mean by reviewing this version of the page - I'd suggest it as an improvement :-) 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. --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). --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! :-) 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.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. --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 "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. – 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. --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. --Alison Wheeler 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible source of interest

There is a list 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. --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 until the AGM 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! 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 --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. AndrewRT 22:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of Board members

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. AndrewRT 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 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.) --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. AndrewRT 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

squid server

What, pray tell, is one of these, and why would Wikimedia want to host one? 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. --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). 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. --Tango 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, look at Kate. :D 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). --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). 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. --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. 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. --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) 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.) --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 ;-) 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. --Tango 15:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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? AndrewRT 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The charities commission has some advice on trustees being under 18 [15] 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. --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? --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? 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. --Tango 13:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)