Engine room

Welcome to the engine roomThis is a place to ask about and discuss the inner workings of the charity. To discuss our external projects and activities, see how you can get involved or suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission, head over to the water cooler.

2013 2014

Attendees at the Wikimedia Conference 2014?

Hi all. I'm rather puzzled by the list of WMUK attendees at the Wikimedia Conference this year, since it seems to imply that WMUK is sending 8 people to the conference. What's going on here? Why is WMUK apparently sending 4 trustees, 3 staff and one unknown ('Katherine Ruth'?) to a conference that every other chapter is restricted to sending 2 board members and, optionally, one staff member to? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mike - this question might have to wait until Jon is back in the office for an answer. Are you happy to wait until Monday/Tuesday for one? Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Is there a choice with waiting? ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your question Mike and apologies for the delay in reply but even I get holidays sometime! This was a question I asked myself a few months back when trying to work out who should go. You may have noticed last year at Milan that the 'two per chapter' rule was not being adhered to. I had been led to believe it would be and was disappointed not to have been able to send more WMUK people as it is such a useful forum. I checked with the German chapter on or about February 4th and the line I was given was that it is no longer the Chapters Conference as was and is now the Wikimedia Conference and that the 1+1 rule no longer applied. I can see 12 chapters who go beyond the 1+1 rule.

In our case, in addition to myself and the chair, we have three people speaking. This is also a great opportunity for newer trustees to meet the wider community as part of their induction process at a reasonable cost. I hope that helps Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The 'two per chapter' rule was what applies to board members; it's turned more into a 2+1 rule where there's two board members and one staff member (normally the CE). Out of curiosity, what exactly did WMDE/the organisers of the conference say here? It's one thing to bend the rules a bit and bring an extra person, but to bring 8 people really looks very odd and could well damage the chapter's standing in the eyes of the other chapters (particularly those that struggle to send any representatives to the conference whatsoever!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2014 (BST)

+1 --Fæ (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2014 (BST)

The registration details are here: [1] I don't recall anyone suggesting the registration process was wrong while it was actually open. 23:37, 1 April 2014 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Land (talk • contribs)

Hi Mike, I recall this agreement, back in the time when the Chapter used to pay to send me to these meetings, as many chapters were concerned about the best use of Wikimedia movement's funds and many smaller chapters were concerned that the chapters with the largest amount of money to spend were overwhelming the conference. The general thinking was that any chapter can easily be represented by two people regardless of how large they are in terms of membership or money and if people are keen to have internal meetings then video conferencing is an alternative that costs the movement nothing. Do you have a link to where this was most recently stated?

Has anyone worked out who Katherine Ruth is and why she is representing the UK Chapter internationally? --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Have asked the organiser who KR may be.Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2014 (BST)

Thank you. Mike Peel (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2014 (BST)

Now have an answer - Katherine Ruth is actually trustee Kate West - they used her middle name in error. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2014 (BST)

Ah, OK, I thought it might be something like that. :-) This does worry me a bit, though, in that it implies that you weren't aware of Kate West registering to attend the event before this... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2014 (BST)

For the record we have people going for four reasons:

• CEO and Chair as standard
• Two staff and one (sorry two) trustee(s) who are invited to do presentations.
• Two trustees (we are guessing KR might actually be Kate West) who will be using this as part of their induction as trustees - a great chance to meet other people and learn about the community.
• Everyone can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas and expectations.

I think this is a sensible use of our resources, flights to Berlin are cheaper than many train journeys to UK cities, for our learning and helps share our knowledge and understanding with other chapters. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2014 (BST)

From my experience of these meetings (having attended three of them in the past), I'd say this is overkill - the number of people you're sending means that there will be multiple people from WMUK in each of the sessions, which dilutes the benefit of having people at the meeting (and reporting back from it). I'd ask for a citation on your cost point - how much are the flights, and can you give an example of a train ticket within the UK that costs more? (assuming off-peak for both of course). But I guess this is all a moot point now, though, given that everything will have been booked and paid for already... So please do assess the cost-benefit ratio here, and learn from that for next year. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2014 (BST)

When I was looking at flights, the cheapest option was £69 return (ok, plus probably £30 to get to and from the airport, and these aren't the flights I actually booked as I needed to fit around my work schedule!). That's less than I would normally pay to get to Edinburgh and back, and far less than it ended up costing to get me to Monmouth.

I am not sure that having more than one person from WMUK in a meeting makes it less effective, though.

Finally - after the Wikimedia Conference, virtually the whole Board will one way or another have spent a couple of days getting to know international Wikimedians and making connections (some at last year's Wikimania, some at the governance workshop the other weekend, some at this Wikimedia Conference). That is very useful experience which I think previous Boards could have done with more of, and something to be proud of given how new our current Board is.The Land (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2014 (BST)

Hi Chris. Thanks for responding to my points.

On flight costs - that's interesting. My flights (which I think were the cheapest option I could find, albeit from Manchester) are something like 3x that. But anyway.

I never said 'less effective', I said 'dilutes the benefit'. If you're using the meeting appropriately, i.e. the people going know the background of the discussions and WMUK's perspective/key learnings, and report back to WMUK on everyone else's perspective and key learnings, then ideally one person per meeting session works well - by having more than that you double the cost but don't double the benefits (yes, you do get more diverse opinions being put forward, but I'm sure there will be plenty of those to go around anyway. ;-) )

Yes, getting to know international Wikimedians is very important and well worth doing. But there's Wikimania in London later this year, which presumably most of the board will be going to as it's very local for them. I don't get why you're sending people to Berlin instead of waiting a few months and going for that much cheaper option! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2014 (BST)

I'll just point out that "chapter bigwig" and "Wikimedian" are not necessarily one and the same. Sure, it's important to meet people from other chapters to share experiences, best practice, discuss common issues, etc, but the moving and shaking of the movement's politicians is an entirely parallel and irrelevant process to the rank-and-file editor, without whom there would be no movement, no WMUK, no bigwigs from other chapters, no WMF... And yet when was the last time you saw a group of eight staff and trustees (or even one!) at any event for the average Wikipedian? That tells you a lot about the current direction of WMUK. Harry Mitchell (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2014 (BST)

I have had some private emails from old friends who are current chapter board members that thanked me for raising the issue, and have been surprised that the previous "gentlemen's agreement" of sending modest numbers ("2+1") has been so easily forgotten and dismissed as inconvenient. The current trustees of Wikimedia UK may be missing the point of how this appears to other chapters, some struggling to manage their plans with far more modest budgets and with either none, or far fewer employees than this chapter has in proportion to the number of members it represents. There is no dispute with the fact that as a trustee or employee, going to this conference is enjoyable and an excellent social networking opportunity; however that WMUK has chosen to send significantly greater numbers to this conference than any other chapter, will not reflect well in the eyes of many of our international colleagues.

As has been kindly pointed out, there are people who believe I should remain dead and buried with past achievements or failures forgotten. This is a choice to be made by the living, you hold the goodwill of the charity, it's up to you to ensure you understand and embody the values of the community most of you have been recently elected to represent. One day you must join me in the necropolis, it should provide an interesting perspective. --Fæ (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2014 (BST)

Response to the threads

In this discussion one aspect has been forgotten or overlooked. i.e. what are we giving back to the conference? As the second biggest chapter we risk accusations of trying to dominate the smaller chapters. I am certain we will not be doing that but the quite the opposite we will be sharing our experience and learning. Four of those attending are making presentations on what we have done. This will be of serious assistance to other chapters and organisations, especially the newer ones. After all we went through in the last two years I think we really owe it to the movement to explain how we developed. So the sessions on good governance, and monitoring and evaluation will be a crucial part of the conference. One member of staff will be talking about our cross-European advocacy work. I remember sitting in a basement room in Milan last year where a few of us realised the potential benefits of working together on EU matters. I am pleased that we have been a leading chapter in bringing this agenda so far and will be bringing the first results to Berlin. Of course we could do this by Skype but I believe the fairly modest cost of getting to Berlin justifies all the benefits of having the face to face contact, especially for those for whom English is not their first language.

In addition two of our new trustees will be there which I see as part of their proper trustee induction. They have been elected for two years bringing significant skills we needed, and this is a great chance for them to learn more about the movement. I don't think this would be as possible at Wikimania which is so much bigger and this is a great chance to make friendships that can be renewed in the summer at the Barbican.

To some extent the venue of such events is irrelevant, it is what is achieved that is important. Some of those going will add days on to other end of the conference to see Berlin and that is up to them and their purses. For the days of the conference we will be in meeting rooms that could be anywhere in the world. Berlin is a fairly cheap place to get to and accommodation not nearly as pricey as London. So all in all I think this is a valid use of our funds that will benefit our chapter but more importantly the wider movement. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2014 (BST)

Hi Jon. Thanks for your response. :-) I hadn't overlooked that aspect, though. WMUK certainly has many things that it can give back to the conference, and share with the other chapters. That can, however, be done by suitably briefing the representatives and asking them to give the presentations. In some cases that's not possible (in particular with advocacy work, where the discussion is more about 'why' than the facts or sharing information), but I can't believe it's the case for all of the presentations that are being given (in particular, I'd hope that all board members would feel able to present on good governance/monitoring/evalutation!). I disagree with your assertion about trustee induction and Wikimania - can you explain why you made that assertion? I'd agree with your following (contradictory) point that the venue is irrelevant, which implies that this could have been done effectively in London. I'd disagree with your point about cost, though, since every single WMUK board and staff member is now located either in London or within easy commuting distance, making accommodation costs irrelevant. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2014 (BST)

To be honest Mike I don't think any of the three areas we are addressing open themselves to a 'briefing'. The work around governance, planning and metrics is highly complicated and nuanced and will inevitably create more questions than answers. Having experts there to lead the discussions will be extremely valuable. The WMUK session in Milan last year on governance demonstrated the demand for discussion The Advocacy work will entail a lot of debate as you say.

I firmly believe (from having witnessed trustee interaction with the community in Wikimania Washington, Wikimania Hong Kong and the last two Chapter's Conferences) that in-person attendance pays real dividends for the trustees themselves and hence our chapter, helps build understanding between the chapters and gives us the chance to feedback mire intensely what we are doing.

It may be that Berlin is exceptional given our desire to bring new trustees into the loop and lay the ground for the Chapter's involvement in Wikimania 14. Perhaps we won't need to send so many people next time. In any case this s a trustee decision . I can only answer for myself and my two colleagues who are going. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2014 (BST)

P.S. I hope it will be an good event but let's not forget that the trustees are volunteers giving up their own time to be in quite intensive meetings for four days. I thank them.

P.P.S Not all the trustees and staff are in easy commuting distance of London. Yorkshire, and Wales are significant distances and even if HS4 is ever built Edinburgh is a significant distance away.

OK, so we disagree then - perhaps that part of things is best left as it is. This is the first time I've seen you say that it was a trustee decision - is there a link available to that decision, please? On trustee locations, I'd forgotten Seddon (sorry!), but who on the board or on the staff is based in Yorkshire or Edinburgh? Perhaps trustee locations can be added to the Board page? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2014 (BST)

Padmini lives in Edinburgh, Toni in Scarborough.

For those interested in what went on over the long weekend in Berlin our report is now up on the wiki. I firmly believe it was good value for money. And if anyone is interested only one per diem was claimed to my knowledge and my expenses, as an example, were £131 for the return flight and the hotel was £240 for four nights.

https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/WIKICON_BERLIN_2014_report

Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2014 (BST)

Thanks for including some of the costs of sending 8 people to this conference, helpful. It would be more meaningful if the total cost could be published. As far as I am aware, this is not a confidential matter that needs to by-pass our commitment to transparency of expenses.

With regard to CEO expenses, I note that Expenses 2013-2014 has not been updated since October 2013, making it now six months out of date. As has been discussed previously on the Water cooler, this report is explicitly required of the Finance Policy and a matter that the board of trustees should be regularly monitoring as part of our commitment to transparency. It seems reasonable for the board to assess that not successfully meeting the requirements of the Finance Policy as not meeting the Strategy monitoring plan (G2b.2 / G2b.3) when this gets reported by the board.

Thanks again for sharing your expenses promptly on this noticeboard. I look forward to seeing both your expenses and the expenses of all current trustees reported in compliance with the Finance Policy. --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2014 (BST)

Just to comment: those sorts of pages should really include both expenses claimed and those paid directly by the chapter (e.g. flights). And thanks Richard for working on them. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2014 (BST)

If we're talking about trustees, then yes, it should. This should probably relate to the Chief Executive too (although the increased activity and the fact that the CE is paid a salary means that the rules may be different, I'm not sure). The SORP, at https://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/media/90634/sorp05textcolour.pdf reads with regard to trustees that (paras 231-233): "the aggregate amount of those expenses should be disclosed in a note to the accounts. The note should also indicate the nature of the expenses (eg travel, subsistence, entertainment etc) and the number of trustees involved...".

However, the Charity Commission recommends that we have "a written agreement setting out what is classed as an expense". This is something we're currently lacking, and is something that I believe the Board will be discussing in the future.

For the avoidance of doubt, not all of Jon's expenses for the recent trip are on there, but they do conform to what I've seen so far. As soon as I have Jon's expenses approved (obviously they have to be signed and approved), I'll get them up on the page. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2014 (BST)

OK, thanks Richard. :-) I'd be happy to contribute to the definition here, if that would be useful - I think my meta page list of compensation represents best practice here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2014 (BST)

Hi Mike - comments to Michael Maggs I think! It will be the board's decision as to what is classed as an expense. Your list is very good in terms of absolute transparency, but it doesn't draw distinctions between 'expenses' and 'reimbursements'. Reimbursement of trustees for purchases they have personally and properly made on behalf of the charity (such as, for example, Michael Maggs paying for office printer paper on his personal credit card) are not counted as expenses and are accounted for as part of the charity's general expenditure instead. Thus, your list lists some thing which are not (for the purposes of UK law) trustee expenses. There are other rules surrounding expenses which I would need to get advice on before going into further... but I will definitely bring your document to the attention of the board. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2014 (BST)

That's true, but hopefully the days when trustees need to pay for purchases on behalf of the charity like printer paper are in the past now! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2014 (BST)

When the total costs are published, could someone add a link here so that future volunteers can find it more easily? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2014 (BST)

Of course Fae. For your information, it should be done by 22nd of next month. I will endeavour to post an announcement here when the time comes. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2014 (BST)

I am really pleased to report that all the reports from the Berlin conference attendees from WMUK are now up on the wiki. Together they make a very interesting read and I thank people for the time they took sharing their experiences. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2014 (BST)

Museum photography

Would it be worth putting effort into trying to make this list as extensive as possible for the UK:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:WikiProject_Arts/Museum_photography

04:46, 3 April 2014 (BST)

There are something like 2,500 museums in the UK. A comprehensive list noting how suitable they are for photography would be a pretty serious undertaking. Maybe if we narrow it down to something like the 100 most frequently visited museums. It could very easily end up that the UK would need it's own table or even a separate page. I think it would probably be a useful undertaking. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2014 (BST)

I wonder if this would be something best done via Wikipedia or Wikidata, rather than commons. On Wikipedia, it could maybe be done with an additional infobox parameter that categorises the museum's article into an appropriate hidden category. On Wikidata, I guess it would need an additional parameter to be added that would allow the (referenced) addition of the information. I'm not sure I can see the point in doing this just on Commons for the Commons community nowadays, when it could be done much more generally. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2014 (BST)

wikivoyage would be the other interested project. Trying to find out for all of them makes it a decent crowdsourced project. 100 isn't far off what I could dig out of my own archives.Geni (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2014 (BST)

Something more proactive?

Perhaps we should be doing something more proactive here, and setting out the types of permissions we'd like to see museums give their visitors, and persuading the museums to adopt those permissions? Something along the lines of Creative Commons, but for museum photography permissions? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (BST)

I suspect a good starting point for defining that is to understand what permissions different institutions currently grant. There is no sense in inventing a wheel before we know whether one has already been invented. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 13:19, 22 April 2014 (BST)

I think the commons page gives a reasonable cross-spectrum of the types of permissions that institutions currently grant. I'd agree, though, about reinventing the wheel - I don't know if standard guidance exists for museums here or not. I guess the first step might be to ask an organisation like collections trust or culture24 if they have standard advice they give out at the moment that could be built on, if there's the interest in doing this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2014 (BST)

Survey

I don't think we have ever had the summary demographic data from the survey. Can we have that added to the other results please? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2014 (BST)

To give a smattering more context, Philafrenzy is I believe referring to the 2013 members' survey. The main report from which was posted at File:Membership 2013 Full Survey Report.pdf. Katherine is most likely to be the person who can provide the summary of demographic data. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 00:01, 12 April 2014 (BST)

It must be almost six months since the survey and I assume that the data has been looked at by now in the office so can the members also have access to the anonymised summary data please? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2014 (BST)

Unfortunately the timely publication of reports appears to be a hole in Strategy monitoring plan, even if the board has got used to always setting SMART targets (T = time limited or timely). If an expected publication of operational reports are delayed, perhaps so long that their use for improvement is lost, it appears that this does not affect the agreed performance indicators for the charity. --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2014 (BST)

The office should have deleted the raw data by now, as per the statement at WMUK membership survey 2013/Survey draft ("When the meta report about the results has been produced and any responses that can be followed up stored on your member contact record, all individual responses will be deleted. This will be within 60 days of the survey closing.") ... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2014 (BST)

Not asking for the raw data Mike, which as you say is confidential, just the summary demographic results so that we can add those to the other results. Perfectly normal to keep and reveal those I think. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2014 (BST)

Agreed. I was meaning more, if the office hasn't generated the summary demographic data by now, then it may be too late. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2014 (BST)

True. I would have expected a detailed analysis, which I thought had been mentioned as an outcome in the survey discussion, particularly as the discussion itself probed into quite low level. However I cannot see that in the text now, so that impression might have been unfounded. --Fæ (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2014 (BST)

I am sure the data was captured, it was a fundamental part of why the survey was run and the other "opinions" part wasn't lost. Anyway, why are we speculating? I don't mind the discussion but my original post was intended simply as a request to somebody in the office to release the data. Could the office please confirm when that part will be released? After all, there were only about c. 57 replies. It's weird when we talk amongst ourselves like this and we know people in the office and trustees read this page and have the answer and they lurk and don't comment. It's a bit passive aggressive to be honest. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2014 (BST)

There have been 2 working days since you raised your question. 3 employees were required to spend a long weekend in Berlin, and they may well be having time off in lieu as seems the working practice. --Fæ (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2014 (BST)

Indeed, give them a bit more of a chance. :-) Remember that trustees won't know this level of detail, so it is down to the staff to reply here during their working hours. Fæ, having time off in lieu is a very good working practice that should be praised, although (going off at a tangent) it would be very nice to have a page that lets us know which days staff members are working and quick responses can be expected, and when they're away. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (BST)

Time off in lieu is an administrative working practice, not a praiseworthy achievement of itself. Whether it is effective, and if it benefits the employee are separate things to be managed. I have experienced organizations where it has become a burden to the employee, who might rather have their weekend with their family, or a predictable work/life balance, or it ends up being discriminatory against employees with young families who are less likely to be able to take advantage of it.

I had hoped that after more than 3 years since we started discussing it, the shared calendar for the charity would have this sort of information about absence on it, particularly for the CEO where there have been several occaisons I can recall when Jon being away on holiday, and having nobody delegated to handle particular issues, caused avoidable delay and friction. --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2014 (BST)

We're getting very much off-topic here! Perhaps this would be worth splitting off into a separate section?

With regards time off in lieu: I was referring to providing time off after a staff member has worked during a weekend, not whether it is a good thing to expect an employee to work during a weekend. Do you think it is a bad thing to give it to a staff member that has opted to work on a weekend/outside of hours? I'd agree with regards the rest of your points about this, although they aren't related to my comment here.

I'd agree with your comments about the shared calendar. I'm getting rather tired of suggesting this now. :-( Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2014 (BST)

This is now getting on for a week with no reply from the office, and easter starts tomorrow... :-/ Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2014 (BST)

Hi Mike, just a quick note that I have flagged this and someone will hopefully get back to you soon. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2014 (BST)

There should be a report available within a week of the end of the Easter break, by Monday 28th. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2014 (BST)

Report on the missing part of the survey? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2014 (BST)

Yes, that's what I meant. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2014 (BST)

See #WMUK membership survey - 2013 demographics report, below, for details of the report. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2014 (BST)

Voting for the affiliate-selected seats on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation

Voting procedure

Voting for the affiliate-selected board seats is now open, and we as a chapter have to place our vote by 31st May by ranking the candidates in order of preference. The two available seats are reserved specifically for candidates chosen by the affiliate organisations. Before making any decision the WMUK board would like to seek input from our own volunteers and members.

The candidates are as follows:

• Frieda Brioschi https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2014/Nominations/Frieda_Brioschi
• Patricio Lorente https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2014/Nominations/Patricio_Lorente
• Anders Wennersten https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2014/Nominations/Anders_Wennersten
• Alice Wiegand https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2014/Nominations/Alice_Wiegand

Anyone can ask questions of the candidates by posting on the talk pages of each candidate statement. You can also ask questions of all the candidates by posting to this page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2014/Questions.

Community comments on the candidates

If you have any comments on the candidates, or suggestions for the WMUK board as to who you would like the chapter to support, please indicate below. Reasoned comments are preferred, as the candidates are not being selected by popular vote. I would suggest that staff and board members should not post here, and should leave this area free for community comments. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2014 (BST)

Comments on Frieda Brioschi

Comments on Patricio Lorente

Comments on Anders Wennersten

Comments on Alice Wiegand

WMUK membership survey - 2013 demographics report

In addition to the main part of the November 2013 members' survey, members were asked a series of demographic-related questions, answers to which were provided on a strictly anonymous basis. 54 members gave answers to some or all of the demographics questions. Our report on the responses has now been published and can be found at WMUK membership survey - 2013 demographics report. The main 2013 survey page, with links to the main report, is at WMUK membership survey 2013. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2014 (BST)

Thanks for making the effort to put this together. It is nice to see this being done by a volunteer.

Could a reason be given as to why this has been published so long after the survey? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2014 (BST)

I am sorry this has taken so long. I think a lack of staff time was contributing to the delay, which is why I volunteered to complete it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2014 (BST)

Thank you for taking this on Michael, it is good that we have data on where we are now so we can know how we are improving (or not) as we go forward. Which leads me to ask are the raw figures that are not publicly reported stored anywhere, so they can be compared with the next survey's responses?

On an organisational matter, it will probably good for future years to establish who will compile both portions of the responses before we publish them. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:37, 24 April 2014 (BST)

There are no surprises here I think, except the 17% who report health issues. Was any further info captured about this that would enable those issues to be addressed in terms of event locations, special equipment etc? I also believe that the sexual orientation and change of gender questions are mainly being asked out of political correctness and are both intrusive and do not gather information we can do very much with. For those reasons they should probably be dropped next time. We are also gathering far too much information about educational qualifications for which we have no real use. It's not like people stop learning once they leave formal education. It would be useful to see the results side by side with other years once a core set of agreed questions can be established to allow comparability year on year. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2014 (BST)

Unfortunately because 'political correctness' is generally such a quick-fire pejorative it's hard to know what your exact concern is here (maybe expand?). In any case, there might be reasons this data is useful, just as we're interested in diversity in editors, so too in our own community (assuming you buy-in to the need to diversify the community). Re: educational qualifications, we might also care about the no. of PhDs in our membership, again it's also interesting information regarding the diversity of our community, it might suggest gaps in the kinds of people we're reaching. I should look at how these questions were asked again though. Sjgknight (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2014 (BST)

Allow me to clarify Simon. I believe we are asking those sort of questions because they are the sort of questions we think we ought to be asking not because there is anything we can do with the replies. There is a presumption under Data Protection principles that when asking highly personal questions you only do so when you have a very good reason. A generalised assertion of wanting "diversity" or "might be useful" or "interesting" is not really good enough. People are diverse in many ways that we haven't asked about in the survey, and I think each question should have a strong rationale for its inclusion in the survey. The more personal the question the greater the need for a strong justification for including it. That means having some sort of plan to do something with the results. It also means that it is reasonable to believe that the answers have a bearing on the organisation's ability to achieve its goals. As for educational qualifications, we have five categories. Could you please explain what practical difference it makes whether someone ticks the first box or the second, or the second or the third? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2014 (BST)

Thanks for the clarification. I think it's best if I just refer back to the conversation about this here, here, note that these were collected confidentially (separately from other results). People are diverse in many ways, but I think it's entirely appropriate we take particular interest in under-represented groups. Re: education education level question planning see here, I don't know what you're suggesting would be better but note you simply select the highest level of attained and this is a very common method to assess education status. Sjgknight (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2014 (BST)

I am suggesting we consider dropping those questions and replacing them with something more useful Simon. A fuller exploration of health or disability or child care or age issues perhaps, all of which might be more directly relevant to ability to participate than gender or orientation questions, or educational qualifications. I stand to be corrected but I believe that the LGBT community is quite well represented in fact, and we know Wikimedians tend to be well educated. We should allow the results of one survey to lead to an evolution in the next whilst preserving a core of basic questions to allow comparability. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2014 (BST)

I have some sympathy with your concerns, Philafenzy, now we have seen the actual numbers. As mentioned in the report, most of the line items listed there are grouped for reporting purposes, and the actual questions were in many cases more granular than I was able to publish without breaching confidentiality - so granular in fact that in many cases there were no more than zero or one responses. That's not to say that the survey questions were necessarily wrong ab initio, simply that next time we ought to be mindful of the fact that the numbers are small (only 54 responses) which means we cannot meaningfully dig very deeply into all the detail that people might like to know about. I would also agree that we should ask potentially intrusive questions only where we can (and where we intend to) take action in dependence upon the results, though I am aware that some do not agree with me on that point. On the question of health, the survey did not provide feedback about event locations, nor on equipment apart from the one response about the desirability of a big screen --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2014 (BST)

I must point out Michael that I repeatedly asked for more effort to be put in to increase the sample size up to closer to 100 before the survey was closed to give greater statistical significance to the results. I suggested a number of ways to do that. I hope some of those suggestions will be adopted next time. I am sure the technical wizards in the office known much better than me how to do that. On your other point, Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act states "Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed." Each question needs to pass this test or we are in breach of the law. More generally, the questions in the survey may tend to reflect the preoccupations of those that designed it (including my input). If there were a lot of people with small children in the office and community, for example, we might have more questions about childcare and similar in other areas. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2014 (BST)

Updating our terms of use

In an earlier discussion, Thryduulf noted that the "Terms of use" link at the bottom of every page still directs users to the terms of use page on the WMF Foundation Wiki (Foundation:Terms of use). Since WMUK services, including the wiki, are now independently hosted, our terms of use need to be modified. I asked for community input on 11th March, and again on 19th, and as there appears to be no volunteer appetite to work on this I have put up some thoughts of my own for discussion.

Please visit Terms of use and Disclaimers. I would suggest that detailed comments are left on the talk pages rather than here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2014 (BST)

Thanks for posting these. They look broadly good to me. :-) You may want to link to the Participation policy somewhere in them too (assuming that applies to this wiki as it would an event), and maybe consider asking for feedback from the global community on the document at meta:Talk:Terms of use. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2014 (BST)

Thanks. Have done the first. I'm less sure about asking for feedback on Meta, though, as readers there will be more used to the terms of WMF content sites, whereas we are a different beast - a UK charitable company that works in the same field but is independent of the WMF. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2014 (BST)

I'm not sure they're so different, particularly from the community angle, and I think they would have useful comments to make based on their experiences from the process of putting together the WMF T&C. Is there a downside to asking them for their thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2014 (BST)

More in the BBC

Good comments from Stevie in the continuing coverage of government IP edits and nice balanced and factually accurate descriptions of the work of WMUK and Wikipedia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27203371 Philafrenzy (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2014 (BST)

Thank you, Philafrenzy. I suspect that we haven't seen the last of this story. As more journalists learn about the wonder of edit histories, there may be more to come. It's also been published in The Drum and I've asked for the relevant corrections. I'll share other coverage as it appears. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2014 (BST)

Objectionable though the changes were, this sort of thing is actually an excellent opportunity to show that our systems work and to increase the profile of the chapter with the UK media. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2014 (BST)

G1.2 measuring use of WMUK related files

WMUK sponsored the upload of this picture of the Goddess Kalika, a 16th century watercolour, India.

In the Strategy monitoring plan, the target for percentage of WMUK-related files in mainspace use on a Wikimedia project (excluding Commons) is set at 13% for 2014. Mostly due to some of my batch upload projects being supported by the chapter, uploads so far this year (4 months in) are more than 31,000 images, significantly more than the entire 12 months of 2013. At the moment, GLAMorous shows usage hovering at 1.4%, not unexpected for recent large batch uploads. Personally I would expect that even with a significant promotional campaign by the chapter to get, say, the LACMA uploads in greater use, overall usage would struggle to exceed 5%.

Any thoughts on how to have the board reset/redefine the metrics being used as part of "G1.2" to be more meaningful and realistic? There is a danger that the metrics chosen will make the success of sponsoring large amounts of media being made available to support open knowledge, look like a bad tactical operational choice. --Fæ (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2014 (BST)

The nature of image uploads is that their usage can vary wildly, and of course will accumulate over time. While your uploads may not be successful in gaining usage, after all finding thousands of articles to illustrate is time consuming, other projects may be. The target is a guideline, and if we don't reach it, then we can provide a narrative as to why that is. If the answer is we have uploaded more images than previously and they haven't found uses yet, that's not a bad thing and something I wouldn't be concerned about. Usage in Wikimedia projects increases the reach of these files, but having them on Commons is useful in itself. Hence why usage is one of several metrics under that goal. I am not convinced that we need a kneejerk reaction to adjust this metric a mere three months into the year. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2014 (BST)

That said, the baseline estimate for 2012-13 was 5%, however the usage for 2013-14 was significantly higher than expected. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2014 (BST)

I notice that all the other targets/metrics in G1.2 are done in terms of numbers of files, rather than percent of files. This avoids this problem. Yaris678 (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2014 (BST)

Let's see how the figures develop over the course of the year. If as a direct result of your uploads we fail to achieve that particular target, we should explain that in the narrative. If the upload numbers are so high that the percentage target turns out to be unachievable, that would actually be a good thing overall, and next year we can learn and perhaps come up with a better target. Leaving the target in place for now may even encourage people to make more effort to use the uploaded files, which would also be good. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2014 (BST)

Transparency commitments

Our new Strategic goal G2b.2 states that: "We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector". See Strategy monitoring plan.

One of our transparency KPIs is a quarterly narrative to be prepared by the Governance Committee (Govcom). The narrative has to address "Transparency compliance as determined by Govcom against published transparency commitments".

We would be interested to hear from the community how Govcom should best address that quarterly task. At present, our 'published transparency commitments' are rather general. Our Vision (V4) states that "We are transparent in our operations, both to our communities and more generally to the public".

A list of more specific commitments might potentially be agreed, which would be easier to measure than a general standard but which could create a tendency to reduce transparency to box-ticking. Measuring many detailed and very specific commitments would also eat up huge amounts of staff and trustee time on a quarterly basis which may not be an efficient way to focus resources on our actual mission.

Thoughts would be welcome. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2014 (BST)

Please refer to Talk:Volunteer_committees#Volunteer.3F for a concrete example. --Fæ (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2014 (BST)

Help needed to design surveys

As a result of our new Strategy, we need to be able to measure three new KPIs which depend on annual survey evidence. They are:

An awareness score in an annual national survey of public opinion

This relates to Strategic goal G1.3: "We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of Open Knowledge". This will need a survey of the general public (to be administered by an outside agency).

An annual survey capability score (self-identified)

This relates to Strategic goal G2a.3: "WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.". This will need a survey of WMUK volunteers (to be administered by us).

A transparency score as measured by annual survey

This relates to Strategic goal G2b.2: "We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.". This will need a survey within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charitable sector (probably to be administered by us).

It would be good to have two or three volunteers who could take a lead in designing the survey questions, with help from the staff. Any takers, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (BST)

You need to ensure that there is volunteer buy-in for these measures before asking for volunteers to conduct surveys, otherwise you won't get volunteers willing to work on surveys about these measures... Mike Peel (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2014 (BST)

I think we need a survey to determine if we need these surveys. Volunteers? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2014 (BST)

I'd like to help on this, as it would follow-on well from the survey work I did last year. However I'm now committed to Wikimania work until late August. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 11:28, 9 May 2014 (BST)

A charter for our volunteer committees

Govcom made the following recommendation to the Wikimedia UK board in December 2013:

[We should] redefine the role and purpose of the non-board committees to give them greater prominence, and if need be re-constitute and re-vitalise them with greater volunteer input to drive forward programmes. At present, the roles and memberships of non-board committees are somewhat unclear, and that has led to atrophy and lack of focus. Board/committee communication needs to be improved, and better board support for the committees’ work is needed. We would hope and expect that this will result in considerably greater community involvement.

I have put up a draft charter for discussion at Volunteer committees, and would like to hear what everyone thinks. While it's not actually possible for a charter alone to re-vitalise our committees (bearing in mind it's only people not policy that can ultimate do that), is this a move in the right sort of direction? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2014 (BST)

A minor observation. Better defining the committees will help with focus, however I do not believe there is any evidence that this is the underpinning cause of "atrophy". There are a lot of committees listed by the board of trustees, certainly compared to 3 years ago, but the number of active members¹ who are interested in participating in the affairs of the Chapter has not grown (probably increased by 30-50% in 3 years) in proportion to other measures of growth such as employee numbers (1000%) or levels of WMF funding (300%+). However this is sliced, if we do not have a wealth of members keen to take on the responsibility of joining and pushing the development and activities of each committee, then the few that enjoy supporting the Chapter in this way will be overstretched and likely to burn-out after over-committing themselves.

I believe the solution to your perception of atrophy, must be to significantly grow the levels of active members, back before 2012 we were doubling this number every year, so there seems little in the way of prioritizing this key objective or setting ambitious targets for it. --Fæ (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2014 (BST)

1—volunteers who are not members will not be allowed take part in committees under the proposed policy.

It is indeed prioritized. Increasing the number of volunteers is a specific measured KPI under our strategic goal G2a.1: We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers. And more active volunteers means more members. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Sure, I am aware of the published strategy. The targets do not include any specific targets for membership, such as doubling it, and as the same document notes, active volunteers on Wikimedia projects and events is not the same goal or measurement as increasing the number of paying or active members of the Chapter who might be interested in taking part in Committee meetings.

By the way, I do not think it is fair to claim that there is a KPI that measures the number of active volunteers, if there are actually no published reports of this number this year, and no plans to be any reports on this number for this in the future. --Fæ (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2014 (BST)

I'm afraid you have misunderstood the reporting. Volunteer numbers will be reported in the quarter 1 report to the FDC. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2014 (BST)

All the KPIs on the Strategy monitoring plan page are going to be published quarterly: that's the whole point. The first quarter's data will be published in the FDC report, in reports to the June Board, and on the wiki. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Then yes, this is confusing. I previously thought it had been made clear that the number of active volunteers was no longer going to be measured and the fact that it has not been reported for over six months would back that up. Presumably the charity is using a non-standard definition for the dates of Quarter 1; when will this report be available for members? --Fæ (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Not sure an exact date has been determined yet, but definitely well before the Board meeting on June 7th. So in few weeks time at the most. The charity's year starts on 1st February, for some historical reason, so the first quarter results will cover the period 1st February to 30 April. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (BST)

We used the same dates in 2012-13 and the financial year starts on 1 February. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Having been the Chair, I'm familiar with the financial year chosen for the charity and I was part of the discussions (more than once) making the decision to stick to February, this need not have been the same quarters now chosen for KPI reporting. Considering the dates of the FDC bid cycle, I would have thought the first quarter within that annual cycle (Quarter 4) could have adopted figures promised in the FDC bid, rather than having a six month gap. Anyway, as has been said many times in the last few years, that's in the past so I'll just wait for the next report to have the KPI based performance measures. --Fæ (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2014 (BST)

Charters of Board committees

I suspect this may be of very limited interest to most, but I am posting here for the sake of transparency. Govcom is considering recommending to the Board some minor changes to the Board committee charters. Details are as follows:

• Audit and Risk Committee charter/Draft
  • diff from existing
• Governance Committee Charter/Draft
  • diff from existing

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Hi Michael. Please can you summarise what the key changes are here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2014 (BST)

Govcom: chaired by Chair of Board as recommended by Hudson review and approved by Board; general governance advice moved to top of the list to reflect actual workload. ARC: make it clearer that the Treasurer is a member ex officio; slight re-write of 'observer' wording, for consistency with Govcom; appointment of Chair to be ratified by the Board; meetings should be called by the Chair of the Committee. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2014 (BST)

Role of the Water cooler

Looking at posts over the last month or so on the Water cooler, rather than being a place to "discuss our external projects and activities", it seems to have become an effectively passive events announcements and official notices page, rather than its historical use as an unofficial volunteer community discussion forum. As any discussion of interest is invariably now moved to the Engine Room, would it be sensible to change the notice at the top of the page accurately to reflect the way the page is now used as a landing page to promote and post news of events of the charity? --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2014 (BST)

Your post immediately above this one is definitely project-related and would be an ideal community post for the Water Cooler. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2014 (BST)

Thanks for the observation. I am unsure if you have any view on my question?

An absence of recent discussion by unpaid volunteers on the Water cooler, indicates to me that recent changes to how this is controlled have resulted in this significantly decreasing its value as a communications channel for active volunteers. Particularly when compared to how lively it was a year or two ago, as can be seen in the archives. --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Since the split though the quality of the discussion has increased, which was the aim of the split. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 23:11, 10 May 2014 (BST)

My question was about the notice. Do you have any view on that? --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2014 (BST)

Yes, I have a view on the notice: it correctly sets out the scope of the Water Cooler. Answering your actual question is not possible as it includes a fallacious presupposition as a rhetorical tool. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2014 (BST)

Thanks for the feedback. It is never my intention to engage in false political or meaningless rhetoric which cannot be supported. Which actual assertion or perceived presupposition do you believe is false, and makes answering it impossible? There are several possible that might be read into it, and I can certainly support the assertions such as the quote from the notice, historical usage and how it is currently not being used by volunteers who are not trustees, employees or contractors in the last month or so. I really wish to avoid wikilawyering, but if you think it is necessary I can unbundle it into a series of more direct questions supported by non-controversial evidence. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2014 (BST)

Where can I find 2014 programmes as opposed to just budget?

I was wondering where last year's ideas for activities around this year's centenary of the First World War had gone, or what outcomes there had been in this area even if it had been reduced, considering there was originally £20,000 agreed by the trustees to be spent on it. Checking 2014 Activity Plan/GLAM Outreach I was surprised that this document contains no details of any GLAM projects, in fact it only appears to link to a budget for 2013 and the section on "timelines" remains blank apart from the note please add details.

Where can I find a tangible 2014 plan for GLAM, with details that can be measured as opposed to reports of stuff that has already happened? --Fæ (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Based on the fact that it has now been a week, this appears to be a "non-success".

I suggest that the board of trustees consider changing the Activity Plan wording so that there is a realistic expectation given to members that when we discuss plans, the charity means standard budget forecasts, reports of what happened in the previous quarter and actions (not plans) for the coming quarter.

These would normally be called "reports" and in addition one would expect the CEO to ensure a schedule spanning the funded programmes is maintained (the next 12 months in the case of this charity) and a work breakdown with associated measurable outcomes. The board of trustees may find this a useful strategic discussion at some point soon, in order to help provide the quality of oversight that most large national charities would expect. --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2014 (BST)

While it has been almost a week since your question, our GLAM Organiser is part-time. A considerable amount of his time has been spent on helping with FDC reporting for Q1 so you may have to wait for an answer. When he is next in I will ask Jonathan Cardy when he has time to answer. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2014 (BST)

I was expecting either a link to the plan so I could look at it, or a statement saying there is no plan. My question was not intended to be directed at anyone, I certainly am not asking employees direct questions. This could be answered by the CEO, any trustee as they follow and review these documents, or another unpaid volunteer up to date on programme reporting, who might be comfortable answering.

As it happens I have been in discussion with Jonathan on other matters in this time. I note that the Activity Plan does not name Jonathan as being responsible for a plan, and that the supporting detailed document says "Daria Cybulska with delegated support from Jonathan Cardy" which I was aware of, but had made no assumptions about. --Fæ (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2014 (BST)

Likewise Daria and the CEO have been extraordinarily busy in particular with drafting the FDC report. I'm afraid an answer will have to wait until staff workloads are more manageable. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (BST)

Thanks. I am sorry that the last week had been a bad time. Again, it was never my intention for this to be seen a question directed to an employee.

@MichaelMaggs: Would a trustee or a knowledgeable volunteer like to answer my question? It seems a simple and short one if anyone knows the answer. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2014 (BST)

Proposed amendments to update charity's security and data protection policies

Hi all,

I am going to be working over the next few days on amending the charity's policies that refer to processing and storage of personal information to bring them up to date or better reflect actual operational practice. What I will do is create sub-pages of the existing policies under a 'proposed revisions' page and then post those links under my posting here.

I would welcome help by either discussion on the broader themes that may interest our community (balancing the requirements of the law with flexible working and being able to be transparent) here, and specific suggestions for amendments or questions for why I have made amendments on the talk pages of the proposed revision drafts.

If there is anything I've missed I'm open to hearing about it - some gaps I know we need to fill in the coming months are a data retention policy in line with the Foundation's and a broader statement on data governance and risk which I hope to develop with GovComm. Anything else the (many!) savvy types on privacy and data issues want to highlight - please do. I will try and drop a line linking back here on talk pages to those who I know have expressed interest in these issues in the past.

This is quite a bit of work so I'll be pushing on with it on top of other things over the next two weeks with a view to propose amended versions to the Board in June by the end of next week (May 23rd) as I will be on annual leave the following week (27th - 30th May)

If there are policies that are causing obvious concern however I'm prepared to hold back on those to extend the discussion period so please do make that point if you need to. Lets try and keep things to Wiki but if you're concerned I'm not responding promptly please email me (katherine.bavage[@]wikimedia.org.uk).

Thanks all - links to proposed amends pages to follow! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2014 (BST)

Page links

• Access control approval guidelines/Proposed revision June 2014
• Annual security audit checklist/Proposed revisions June 2014
• Data Breach Policy/Proposed revisions June 2014

International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance part two

Hello everyone. I wanted to bring this back on the agenda. For clarity, I initially proposed that Wikimedia UK gets involved with this somehow here last year. The reason I am bringing this up again is because the Wikimedia Foundation has announced that it has signed the principles. Essentially, the principles make a statement against mass surveillance of internet users. Again, I think that this is in scope and showing support for these principles is important. I hope that we can revisit this issue. You can read the principles here. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2014 (BST)

I am surprised and disappointed that this is being lobbied for a second time. The text has not changed or improved since the previous discussion here. The document will be offensive to many, as LGBT minorities have been explicitly excluded from the "Legitimate Aim" section, despite "sexual orientation" being mentioned in the unenforceable preamble. Were the board of trustees to choose to support this document they would be going against the spirit of, and possibly be in breach of, "Wikimedia UK as Service Provider" in Diversity and Equalities Policy and value 5 of Vision, values and mission.

I am not aware of the WMF seeking any consultation with the community. I would be happy to be provided with some links if this has happened. I have posted the same request on the WMF blog post.

I have alerted the Wikimedia LGBT group here. --Fæ (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2014 (BST)

For those interested, Roshni Patel of the Wikimedia Foundation addresses Fae's concerns directly:

"Hi Fae,

Prior to signing on to the Necessary and Proportionate Principles, we consulted the advocacy advisors. You can find that here.

The list of prohibited discriminations under the “Legitimate Aim” principle is non-exclusive and includes “other status.” Given that sexual orientation was listed in the preamble, it would certainly be included under “other status”.

I am certain that if LGBT groups were directly excluded the Wikimedia Foundation would not have signed the principles. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2014 (BST)

Patel has given a tangential reply rather than a direct response to the issues. I'm afraid Patel's assumption is unfounded, from this it can be seen that there has been no community consultation where interested groups, such as Wikimedia LGBT, might be allowed to have a voice before the WMF made this irrevocable action. It should be noted that Patel's post is not a statement for the WMF. Though she is being employed or sponsored by the WMF as a 'Fellow', her profile on the Foundation website is quick to ensure that nothing she publishes represents the WMF, unless explicitly stated otherwise. I will be responding, probably later today.

With regard to your being "certain that if LGBT groups were directly excluded the Wikimedia Foundation would not have signed the principles", you are welcome to hold those beliefs, however I am discussing the blog post and can only go by what is written there and the words of the document that the WMF has now committed itself to. Based on advice I have been given on the Advocacy Advisors email list, the WMF should follow their own consultation policy, and this appears to have explicitly not happened in this instance.

Wikimedia UK does not need to have an opinion on these principles, the charity can just say "good work" or similar. Again I am disappointed to see this being lobbied for so hard here, when the previous community discussion was, at best, controversial. --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2014 (BST)

I have not been following the discussion which led to the WMF signing up to these principles and don't intend to go trawling over loads of discussions to find out who was consulted and who thought what. The WMF will no doubt have had good reasons for wanting to sign up. However I also feel that a set of principles which has a section on legitimate use of surveillance and specifically omits sexual orientation from a list of exclusions is very seriously defective. WMUK should consider whether it is in the best interests of the charity to sign up to a set of principles which, for example, the Ugandan government could comply with while undertaking surveillance for the purpose of targeting gay men for arrest and imprisonment. Since our signature is not needed on these principles I will take a lot of persuading that they are a good thing for us to do. Mccapra (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2014 (BST)