Talk:Non-board committees

Volunteer?

Other committees such as the ARC are volunteer driven, unless we consider that trustees are not volunteers. Should these other committees be recognized as a volunteer committee with delegated powers and a separately defined scope, rather than making it seem that they are not volunteer committees? --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2014 (BST)

The board committees have their own separate charters, which I think is right given their very different roles. So, while you are right that those are indeed volunteer (trustee) led, it makes sense to deal with them separately. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2014 (BST)

My point was not whether to deal with them separately, but to recognise that the wording drives a procedural wedge between "volunteer committees" that welcome volunteer participation and "delegated committees" which in practice do not appear to attract volunteers.

For the sake of historic context, "sub-committees", i.e. committees that may have delegated powers, were not originally expected to be wholly composed of trustees and employees. In fact we originally hoped to not need more than one or two trustees on these committees so that several other interested members of the charity could take a more leading role without being trustees. For example, the Governance Committee and the Audit and Risk Committee have no named non-trustee observers, indeed despite my offering twice to do so, I have been unable to become an "observer" on the ARC, yet we deliberately wrote the terms of that committee to enable observers with relevant experience to contribute and remain involved. This is a poor practical measure of the transparency and accountability of the charity to its members. --Fæ (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Yes, I was aware from recent postings that you have volunteered your services on the Audit and Risk Committee. While the policy does allow non-trustees to be appointed as observers to Board Committees, the Board has not exercised its power to do so. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2014 (BST)

You were recently asking for suggestions as to how the charity might measure transparency. I suggest you add this one to it, it is a pretty obvious direct measure. --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2014 (BST)

It would be good to see the board thinking about appointing observers to the ARC/GovCom. There are a number of current volunteers that could give them useful input (and historical information), and it's also a good way to get external experts involved in WMUK's goverance work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2014 (BST)

Recognized?

The documents lists four volunteer committees which are recognized by the board. Are there minutes of a board meeting that document this happening? --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2014 (BST)

If I remember rightly, the December board. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Checking Minutes_7Dec13, I can see that there were some minutes about who was going to join various committees, but there does not seem any vote where all four committees which are noted as recognized here, had their scopes/charters approved, nor their full membership approved (though I doubt the board of trustee intends to require that anyway).

As the charter for committees like the GLAM committee remains a draft, I would doubt that the board would want to be on record (in this document) as recognizing it, until the charter were published, with an active group of named members, and minutes being published on-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Have tweaked the wording. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Rather than including a list here, why not just link to Committees? A single list is easier to maintain than multiple lists... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2014 (BST)

(Also, I'm still confused why the Conference Committee is *still* being ignored here. :-( Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2014 (BST))

Closing committees

I wonder whether the reference to closing committees be made more explicit. We cannot stop volunteers from forming groups to discuss the charity's activities (or indeed, whatever they want to discuss). What we can do is something like: recommend committees cease their activities, withdraw staff and board support, and discontinue requests for board reports. Sjgknight (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Well, a group that meets 'to discuss the charity's activities' or to do things outside the auspices of the charity is free to do whatever they want, but isn't a Committee for our purposes and, as you say, will have no (or at least less) support and will not have the formal advisory role and direct line to the CE and board that committees have. Of course, that may be fine, that may be what the group in questions wants, and that's not to say that they can't still do good work. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Should've been clearer, I'm thinking of groups which are committees, but which it is felt should no longer retain that status. I think we'd want to be clear about what closing down means (as above) in part because we don't want to give the impression that we (the board/staff) are in the business of setting up/closing down committees (which we of course are not). Sjgknight (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2014 (BST)

I recommend a procedural close that is not subject to a "narrative" work-around. For example "Any committee failing to meet or publish minutes for 6 months will default to being closed, and requires a fresh vote of trustees to be recognized with an approved scope again." This probably already applies to some of the named committees. --Fæ (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Committee selections (or elections)

The proposal sets committee size limits at 5 or more, and fewer than 13. Pragmatically this is unlikely to be an issue e.g. for the education committee (on which I sit), but is it something we’re happy to formalise, and would we like to include something in this (or leave it to the committees individually) regarding selection processes if more people wish to join Sjgknight (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2014 (BST)

I have sat on committees with active members hovering at 3 or 4. Sometimes these are the most productive and useful operational committees for making proposals and recommendations. Setting a lower limit at 5 may mean having people adding names to make up the numbers, but in practice do not attend meetings. I note that the ARC only has 4 members, as an example, and when I was part of it, it only had 3 members. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Those actual figures come from the earlier 2012 proposal, made I believe by Mike Peel. While I'm not wedded to them, it does perhaps make sense to ensure that a committee doesn't end up being one-person-and-a-dog, and neither does it end up being so all-inclusive that most of the people who are allegedly members actually don't have enough time or perhaps interest to turn up to meetings. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2014 (BST)

If you are going to retain this restriction at 5, even if you are not wedded to it, do you expect that committees that regularly publish minutes with 4 or fewer named attendees to close? --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2014 (BST)

As I said, this is a tentative proposal. What would be your own suggestion for improving it? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Say less, and more in plain English rather than legal English (for example the heavy use of "shall be", particularly for aspects that are not controlled by the board of trustees or are non-controversially logical). "Committees determine their membership" is fine. When the board reviews a committee's "remit", they can suggest the proposed document define membership, which covers what happens if there is a lack of active members in the future. No need to define all that in this document, it just creates bureaucracy that is likely to drain creativity from our organization. --Fæ (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Is 5 too large for a lower limit? Would 3 be better? Is 13 right? Do we need any numbers at all? If no, does it matter if we end up with a committee having a very large nominal membership most of whom are no longer active? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2014 (BST)

The numbers I suggested before were aimed at a situation where the committees had decision-making powers within their budgets, and were appointed by the board. That no longer seems to be the case (sadly, and for no good reason), so I'd suggest removing the point and letting good judgement by the board decide whether the committee continues to be sustainable or not. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2014 (BST)

Committees and other bodies

This looks like a very good draft for thinking about the GLAM/education/tech committees (and other committees of that ilk). I wonder, though, whether the grants committee and the (dormant?) conference committee are a somewhat different beast, and ought to fall under another charter and possibly title. For example, I sit on the grants committee, but it doesn't ever meet (in person or by phone), it advises on individual grants but not on the bigger operational-strategic level (although perhaps it should do this), it has a fairly small fixed size which welcomes feedback from other interesting members, etc. The conf-com will be slightly different, but of a similar type. The quick solution to this is just to call those two something else, and deal with the 'Committees' now and other things later. Sjgknight (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2014 (BST)

We haven't discussed this yet, but it would make sense for the grants committee to operate on the same footing as the other volunteer committees. I rather think it should meet regularly, should advise the CE on the how the grants program aligns with our strategic goals, and should report quarterly as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2014 (BST)

I agree with Michael here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2014 (BST)

That is also a quick solution :-). Same for conf-com (presumably if the members want to do that!)? Sjgknight (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2014 (BST)

"They are not exclusive structures"

I'd encourage you to rethink the point that says that they aren't exclusive structures. I've seen staff members and volunteers ignore committee structures in the past (e.g. ConfCom with EduWiki, also Wikimania 2014, and more recently TechCom with hiring a program manager), and generally speaking it hasn't gone well for WMUK. It's also really annoying from a volunteer perspective. Either give committees a reasonable level of control over/ability to provide recommendations on their areas of expertise, or don't bother having them. That's not to say that the committees should have control of every single detail or event, but high-level input should be a continual must. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2014 (BST)

For context:

They are not exclusive structures, in the sense that they do not and cannot constrain the broader work that volunteers and staff do. Volunteers are never required to work within a Committee environment (and indeed volunteers who prefer not to be not members of Wikimedia UK are not easily able to do so). Committees may not attempt to control volunteers or ad hoc working groups that prefer to remain outside the formal Committee structure.

.

Do you have an alternative wording here? I can see your point, but of course we also want to support (or, cannot and should not prevent) people getting involved in many different ways. I think you're referring to particular examples but I'm not sure which/when, etc. There may also need to be some thinking about whether we define the committee-strategy role and the way that feeds into the board/operations, and whether some things committees currently do would be of a slightly different nature. Not sure what the best solution is here, it's an interesting point. Sjgknight (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2014 (BST)

How about "Committees should not try to control the detailed work of WMUK, and they must recognise that they cannot control everything that is done by Wikimedia UK volunteers. However, they should expect to be involved in all high-level discussions and decisions about the topic of the committee, whether that work is done by staff or volunteers." Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2014 (BST)

A few comments

On a personal note, I am not a WMUK member, so would be excluded from participation by this charter. Which is of course not up to me. (I rehearsed my reasons for letting my membership lapse to a staff member not that long ago: at least one of them still applies.)

Various comments, some of which I have mentioned on the UK list:

• I am recorded in a Tech committee minute as saying that the criterion for success, in relation to volunteers on the committees, is to be measured by actions they take on and complete.
• I can add to that the amplification that the comment was about "volunteer engagement". There are different ways to contribute to committees, and the "talking shop" function is also valuable.
• "Committee work" needs to get done, though, and actions are significant. Everyone on a committee should be on a level, as far as that is concerned. The onus is on the group.
• I don't actually see the success or otherwise of these committees as essentially determined by "constitutional" matters.
• The "tacit" stuff. Implicit in participation should be something like this: "all committee members should respect good practice in matters of collaboration, delegation, and moderation of discussions".
• I have made comments on the Tech list and UK list that relate to the previous point. I don't think those "tacit" things have always been respected. I have gone as far as I want to in public on that, really: the washing of dirty linen.
• Basically, respect for delegation has been a tussle over governance.
• Collaboration in the Wikimedia sense is not at all easy to operate offsite, and it is really important that principles like COI and not arguing from authority are recognised as relevant.
• As a current WMUK contractor, I have taken part in two related committees, when it appeared I needed to do so, in particular to advocate for technical support for the VLE. (I took on the work before those committees existed.) This was not a good experience; and no doubt it colours my views. I still consider myself a "stakeholder" in the Tech and Education areas.
• I have made comments about principles of treatment of stakeholders. In one way this is a moderation issue: anyone who advocates on behalf of a project risks COI, but of course the committees must be receptive to such advocacy, and need to be able to discuss it in detail, in order to form a view. I would say that these discussions should be handled with greater awareness of the issues.
• I largely agree with Doug Taylor on operational matters for these committees, but the comments above should be taken as caveats within that view. One person's "be bold" is another's "chucking weight around". I have at times struggled to see what colleagues find to justify their approaches.

In sum, a healthy culture in the committees requires awareness at a few different levels of what is going on. I see there as being plenty of work to do on that. It could be helped by greater transparency on "routes to resources", and tech management with a single point at which to apply. The issues I see are not that easily decoupled from WMUK matters in general. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2014 (BST)

With regard to arguing from authority or chucking weight around, I would rather put the issue as the charity is no longer volunteer centric in its approach, nor its actions. I think this is a more relevant concept/issue as arguing from authority might become a rationale to avoid listening to experts. Some examples of how the charity has stopped being volunteer centric, I am sure there are others:

• Not that long ago, GLAM programme and managing relationships with partnering organizations was entirely volunteer driven, now all coordination not only defaults to going through employees but is expected to always be managed by employees.
• Committees with delegated powers are limited to trustees and employees as members, with no observers.
• 2013 was the last time any numbers for active volunteers was reported or estimated.
• The Village pump (water cooler) is now primarily for employee notices and a place to passively promote events rather than a volunteer forum for discussion.
• All blog posts for the charity are posted through an employee, whereas previously a number of unpaid volunteers could prepare and put up posts.

--Fæ (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2014 (BST)