Water cooler

Welcome to the water cooler This is a place to find out what is happening and to discuss our external projects and activities. Feel free to suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission or ask questions about how you can help. To discuss the inner workings of the charity, head over to the engine room.

WMUK Grants programme - a piece of cake?

Applying for a grant is easy.

If Wikimedia UK can help you improve Wikimedia projects, check out our grants page.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tools for identifying Wikimedians at press events, etc

Albin with Wikipedia microphone

Copied from a post I made to the UK mailing list at Michael Maggs's request:

Reading about the making of videos at Eurovison I was stuck by the positive response to the "Wikipedia representative", not least engendered by his use of a branded microphone windshield (see third picture in the above post; that windshield is far too big for use on the Zoom H1 which I use for the voice project, but something smaller would be useful).

Similarly, my local branch of OpenStreetMap issues mappers with branded high-viz vests; these often reassure the public (or at least facilitate the opening of a discussion), when someone is walking down their road noting house numbers and other features.

I suggest some thought is given to providing WMUK volunteers who are likely to attend press calls and related events with something to identify them in a crowd; this could include microphone windshields, tabards, baseball caps, or perhaps something else.

I strongly suggest that the primary brand used should be Wikipedia, with Wikimedia and WMUK (or WikiNews or whatever) beings secondary, as it is the former which the lay public recognise most readily; and which elicits the positive response referred to above.

On a related note, are we ever going to get the promised business cards?

Michael asked:

perhaps you could kick off a discussion there by summarising the sort of recognition and/or materials that you would find it helpful for the charity to supply?

I've mentioned some items above; I welcome suggestions from others. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:57, 15 May 2014 (BST)

I sent an email yesterday to the UK list and it has not been posted. If any one wishes to read my summary of the background, please email me for a copy. There seems little point in re-sending emails to the list as I have been given no explanation. Be aware that any emails I send may misleadingly appear in the list archives as if it was posted at the time I sent it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2014 (BST)

Or maybe the list admins haven't got round to dealing with it yet. Probably best not to speculate on motives. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2014 (BST)

(edit conflict) I have removed anything from my comment here that was more than bald facts, to make sure it is now extremely hard to read bad faith into it. The email of concern was posted on 15 May 2014 @14:16. If it does get posted, it will appear as if it were posted before six other emails in that thread that in practice were written afterwards. --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (BST)

Thank you. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2014 (BST)

Business cards

I would hope that we can make the best possible use of this excellent suggestion to increase the range and scope of our charitable work.

If we were to supply business cards or other items implying accreditation, what should be on them? Something like "Volunteer Photographer, Wikimedia UK" or the equivalent, with the globe logo if we can persuade the WMF to allow us to use their trademark in that way? The wording "Wikipedia representative" may not be possible as we are not legally allowed to speak for the "Wikipedia community" as a whole, in the same way that we cannot control what goes into the encyclopedia. Just thinking aloud here; of course we will have to look into the legal issues of representation before we can be absolutely certain about what is safe. Ideally, it would be best if we can avoid having to print disclaimers, as any sort of legalise will tend to undermine the member and will scare people off.

What would members find useful, in practice?--MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2014 (BST)

Why the word "volunteer"? from comments on the mailing list there seems to be an assumption that it offers some form of legal indemnity to WMUK, or WMF; I remain to be convinced that that's the case. I've used my (voluntary) work with the RSPB as a yardstick before; when I appear in public alongside their paid staff, I have the same type of badge, and the same branded clothing, as they do. The voluntary nature of my participation is nowhere made apparent. [I've split this as a subsection of the above, lest that get bogged down]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:04, 16 May 2014 (BST)

That was just my suggestion. I suspect that the term, or something equivalent, might be needed on a formal business card, but as you say would seem unnecessary on clothing, badges and so on.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2014 (BST)

as far as I'm aware Andy is right and defining someone as a volunteer does not limit the charity's liability. My view is that if we want to be a volunteer led organisation we should provide volunteers with cards. The charity would need to consider and take steps to limit any liability which might arise as a result. This would however possibly open up a distinction between 'officially-approved' volunteers and others doing the same kind of work on their own initiative. How would everyone feel about that? Any suggestions for the basis on which cards should/should not be issued? Mccapra (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2014 (BST)

As I understand the logic of the previous debate, it was essentially that if we gave volunteers business cards, they would be representing WMUK. The board, in their infinite wisdom, thought that was an inherently bad thing, but there was also the small risk that somebody "representing" WMUK might say something silly, that somebody might take them seriously, and that WMUK's reputation might suffer as a consequence. That's a lot of ifs buts and maybes if you ask me. Volunteers representing WMUK should be seen as a Good Thing™, and the advantages of business cards to people like Andy and me (who talk to a lot of people and often need to follow up, or give others a way of following up should they wish) far outweigh the hypothetical drawbacks based on an overly conservative approach to risk. On a list of most useful things the chapter could d for its volunteers, business cards would be pretty high up on my list. If it's really necessary, we can sign some sort of agreement. Harry Mitchell (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2014 (BST)

Bear in mind that the composition of the board was almost totally different during that 'previous debate'. I can't speak for past boards, but I can say that the current board is more than open to discussing ideas such as this which could help volunteers be more effective in the work they want to do in association with the charity.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2014 (BST)

I can speak with personal recall of board discussions (for goodness sake, it was hardly that long ago and plenty of discussion was publicly on this wiki), the issue was volunteers making up fantasy titles rather than being an "inherently bad thing", however the trustees wanted to care not to hurt anyone's feelings. Being open to discussing ideas with volunteers is not an invention of the "new" board of trustees, giving out that perception is unhelpful and truly smacks of damnatio memoriae, in most measurable ways past boards were far more engaged in discussion with volunteers than the current set. --Fæ (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2014 (BST)

Your last sentence is accurate, Fae, certainly. It wasn't the volunteers who made up the vanity titles, though (indeed, I Tip-Ex'd it out on my cards), but the phrase used for getting us replacements was "within a week"... Harry Mitchell (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2014 (BST)

This is now on the agenda for the next Board meetingMccapra (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2014 (BST)

Thanks Harry. I have no idea why anyone promised to get replacements within a week. I doubt it was me, based on my personal experience of it taking almost a year to be supplied with replacement business cards, and by the time I actually had them in my possession I was on my way out the door, so they became an extremely expensive notepad. I never found out how much they cost, but I think it would have been in the region of £140? Enough to provide lunch and travel for a modest edit-a-thon. It's been said before, but I hope the board actually ask about costs this time around, as it seems fair to make these costs a matter of public record. --Fæ (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2014 (BST)

I'm not sure I'd go along with the logic that the business cards would be a replacement for an editahon (nor, even, that the editathon would be the better investment, even if it has more tangible results), but I do take your point on costs. It seems reasonable for people to know how much they cost and weigh that up against the benefits for themselves, I agree. "Within a week" was the phrase used (just one of those things that sticks in the mind, I guess) but I guess recrimination for the events of yesteryear isn't really helpful, and I take Alistair's comment to mean that the board will consider the issue carefully, which is progress at least. Harry Mitchell (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2014 (BST)

This is an old conversation and I'm not sure of the outcome, but just wanted to give some factual background.

The Wikimedia Foundation specify a standard for business cards which involves rounded corners and two-sided cards. The cards that were printed a couple of years ago met this standard, but this was why the cost was so controversially high, which in turn was why the idea has not revisited again until this year. Our previous batch of business cards used a more standard format: rectangular and printed on one side. This is naturally cheaper and also meant we could approach a wider range of printing shops. When I was a trustee, I spent a day getting PDF-editing software, editing the template, ringing around Bristol printers for quotes and bussing out to the shop that could do it cheapest. The cost will be written down somewhere, but it was relatively cheap- I seem to recall 90 quid for 1500 cards, but don't rely on my memory. (There are special offers for business cards that seem much cheaper than this, but you can't use your own design). I still use this business cards at events today, with the "Trustee" part scratched out of course.

I like Andy's suggestion of microphone shields/ other props that are visibly Wikipedia-branded, but it could be costly for small numbers. Maybe the on-a-charity-budget solution is just to use stickers? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2014 (BST)

Clothing

Anything visible, like t-shirts/hoodies (perhaps with writing on the back, rather than the front?), baseball caps, camera cases/straps, and other props that people would use anyway lends itself to being branded, which makes it visible. I do agree that the Wikipedia logo is the one that people recognise; if I have to spend ten minutes explaining the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia, we've defeated the point (which is to be recognisable, and to catch people's eye with something they immediately recognise and have positive thoughts about). Harry Mitchell (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2014 (BST)

Camera straps would be good idea, if the brand is very prominent. Clothing would need a logo (perhaps breast-pocket sized) on the front, if the purpose is to identify the wearer to someone facing them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:49, 28 May 2014 (BST)

Shaping our programme 2014-19

Dear community,

We are now preparing for plans for next year. This is a complicated task with many viewpoints and factors to consider. Your view are an important part of this and I am publishing today a discussion paper with suggestions for how the chapter can develop over the next year and beyond.

It is based on previous year's work and interviews with trustees, community members and staff.

You can access it here

Please comment on the discussion page.

Thanks and hope to see many of you at Wikimania. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2014 (BST)

Proposal: Science/STEM Conference

This is an idea I have had on the back burner for a long time. Note the following:

• We have existing relationships with many scientific bodies such as the Institute of Physics, Geological Society, Medical Research Council, and many more. However, individual societies are usually unwilling to take the risk of running a big event centred on Wikimedia because, although they have some interest from their members, they can't be sure that enough [physicists, geologists, psychologists, whatever] will turn up.
• Many scientists are pure researchers working in small research centres: they aren't associated with universities, or at least university teaching. These small research centres or groups can easily be missed in our outreach but they can be very receptive: e.g. Sphingonet
• Scientists are under professional pressure 1) to engage with the public, 2) to make all the outputs of their research open-access and freely reusable. This is the case much more so now than just a few years ago. This makes them receptive to explanations of how they can achieve this. This has also led to a great expansion of science communicators/ public engagement professionals.
• Scientists are likely to do coding/markup in their daily work. This makes them "low-hanging fruit". It's not that they are more valuable to Wikipedia than arts/humanities experts: in fact I think WP is clearly more in need of content and expertise in arts/humanities areas. I mean that in the current atmosphere, outreach to scientists is more likely to result in enthusiasm and concrete outcomes.
• We have documentation and workshops aimed at scientists and their bosses, explaining how Wikimedia relates to their goals of research impact and public engagement. These materials need continual improvement and wide publicity.
• There are articulate scientist-Wikipedians such as Peter Murray Rust, Daniel Mietchen, Darren Logan, and Alex Bateman who are great at demonstrating Wikimedia's relevance to scientific practice.
• Wikimania 2014 and other events have shown that Wikimedia has useful friends in the scientific sphere, including the Public Library of Science and the many Open Access/Open Science advocates.
• We have raised a lot of awareness of Wikipedia as a platform for dissemination or for education, but not so much yet about WP as a platform for research itself.
• Wikimedia UK volunteers have run sessions at science conferences but there is just too much overlap between Wikimedia and science to cover in a single session.

I think all these facts suggest that a large conference (aiming at 100 attendees) on Science and Wikipedia would have a lot of impact. The themes of the conference would be:

• Wikipedia and Wikimedia as platforms for promoting informed public discussion of scientific topics and theories (acknowledging that the public have a curiosity about all sorts of scientific topics, and overwhelmingly use Wikipedia as a starting point to self-educate).
• Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a platform for research (e.g. the Research portal).
• Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a model for scientific publishing and citizen science (including Wiki-to-Journal publication, Journal-to-Wiki publication, altmetrics, machine-extraction of data from published research, open bibliographic data, data citation, crowdsourced enhancement of scholarly databases, integration of Wikipedia with open/free services such as Figshare, ORCID, Flickr...)
• Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a platform for scientific education. (The answer to "I haven't time to edit Wikipedia." is "Allocate your students to do it and assess them.")
• Women in Science and Technology: is Wikipedia reinforcing stereotypes or providing role models? What is being done?
• Since a lot of the attendees will be personally interested in editing Wikipedia, the event should include training.

I see this as potentially a day or day-and-a-half event, on the model of EduWiki. Much as I advocate for geographic diversity, the scholarly societies and science communicators are so concentrated in London that this event would realistically have to be in London. This means that for it to be financially feasible we'd need a host organisation to provide a cheap venue. It would need about a year's lead time to organise and publicise.

I realise that WMUK's funding makes it hard to plan costly activities in advance, that staff have a lot on their plate and that at this point the suggestion of organising another conference may come like fatty food after a powerful hangover. On the other hand, I think an event like this could be a great success, would continue the partnerships we've already worked to build up, could spawn more editors and more partnerships, and could involve shared effort with other Open Coalition organisations, such as Open Knowledge. Feedback welcome on this suggestion. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2014 (BST)

Sounds like a good idea in principle. Wearing my "Wikipedian-in-Residence at ORCID" hat, I'm in. We should consider whether there are other events to which this could be attached (to save/ share costs), and whether we need a traditional or "unconference" format (or a blend). Does the medical project do anything like this? What about the open access/ open publishing folk? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:36, 29 August 2014 (BST)

Would be great to have you involved, Andy. Yay for a blend of keynotes/ scheduled sessions/ unconference blocks! That way we have appealing stuff to publicise, but lots of attendees get a chance to speak and people can talk about very new activities. I think medicine on Wikipedia could be a conference itself, but throwing the net wider means a wider potential audience, and STEM is a wide net. A conference like this is probably a necessary step on the way to more specialised conferences, and that's a big reason I'd like us to do it.

There are relevant conferences where we've previously been represented, like Science Online London and the national public engagement conference, and we've run workshops adjacent to major subject conferences (you may well have done this yourself), but I think the interesting work going on under the above themes has outgrown one subject or one session in a conference. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2014 (BST)

Worth noting that the Science Online London (now branded as SPOTON) has gone silent - no word whether there will be a 2014 event so I guess that means there won't. There is certainly a gap waiting to be filled. I would be happy to help out. Frank Norman

Love the idea of the conference. I have organised and facilitated an unconference as part of a wider conference before, so could do similar for this. Yaris678 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2014 (BST)

I think this is a great idea, thank you for sharing. Wikimedia UK's proposal to the FDC needs to be complete and handed in on 1st October. If we wanted to include something like this in our proposal we would need to get a handle on how much it would cost and where it would fit into our strategic goals - which of course it does. If anyone is keen to start a wiki page for the proposed event where we can thrash out some details, I would be happy to help. We'd need to be fairly quick about it. If there is anything the office can do to help please do let me know. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2014 (BST)

I think this is a great idea and would happily help out17:30, 2 September 2014 (BST)143.65.196.4 <-- this is HenryScow, unfortunately I'm having login probs on WMUK!

Sounds a great idea. There's only so much you can do in a day (or 1.5) though, especially if training is included. Some narrower focus might be a good idea, leaving space for the next year .... Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2014 (BST)

@Johnbod: I agree that pursuing each of these themes at length would make the conference too big. The idea is that we invite contributions on these themes and the conference participants decide which to prioritise. Also, the unconference format would mean that there could be sessions that cover a lot of ideas in a short time, eg. lightning talks or round-table discussions. I share the hope that follow-up events would have a different emphasis.

@Stevie Benton (WMUK): I want to take up your offer. I'm kind of worn out writing stuff, but I'm clear in my head how this relates to the strategic goals. If we talk over Skype and you ask me some questions, can you write down the details you need?

@all: So we need to decide quickly if this is actually happening, and it's not happening unless we have a venue we can use freely or very cheaply. That means that we must get a suitable host organisation. The Wellcome Trust/Wellcome Library would be an ideal location, as would the Royal Society, as would the British Library, as would the Science Museum (where we've previously had an AGM). My recollection of the Institute of Physics building is that its rooms are not quite big enough for the conference I envisage, but there are other scholarly societies that have suitable venues and would like to do a jointly badged event with Wikimedia UK. I'm assuming that once we have a venue, WMUK could pay for refreshments, handle bookings and we volunteers can organise programme and publicity. So let's all pump our respective contacts and try to get at least an in-principle agreement. This could be a headline-making event, especially with the right controversial speakers. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2014 (BST)

An additional thought: the one-and-a-half-day format assumes people are staying overnight. This will be more difficult in London than in other places. Perhaps it would be better to run the conference for two days, with a late start both days so that people can commute in (e.g. from Cambridge or Oxford) on off-peak trains. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2014 (BST)

Okay, good news everyone: contacts have been pumped and we have a willing host organisation which is absolutely ideal: the Wellcome Trust (who hosted the Medical Humanities editathon earlier this year)! Next important task is to decide *dates* for the conference. This would appeal to scientists, academics, science communicators, librarians and of course Wikimedia volunteers- very much the same bunch who would have attended SpotOn. For those based in universities, it's hard to find a convenient slot. May-to-mid-June will be difficult because of exams/marking. Mid-September onwards is the start of term. July is when people are usually away on holiday. The first week of August is out because Wikimedians will be in Mexico for Wikimania. We need to suggest some dates to Wellcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2014 (BST)

Awesome. Great work and great location. I am flexible on date. Yaris678 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2014 (BST)

@User:Yaris678: Thanks. I'll be taking you and everybody else up on their offers of help. :) MartinPoulter (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)

@all: We now have a planning page for the conference, at Wikipedia Science Conference, so please join in there. As the page develops, I hope we can move some planning stuff to sub-pages. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)

Automated membership welcomes and renewal process - feedback sought

Dear all,

We are now working with a contractor to improve the way our database supports membership applications, approvals and renewals and reminders!

I have created a flowchart to describe what we are currently planning as a process - you can see it here. The shapes that are not green represent different email templates that are customised by linking to member details held on each person's database record.

I would love feedback about:

• What stages are missed
• What else might we include in these emails in terms of content
• What problems can you see with this

I will review comments on Friday 12th September so please get back to me by then - the talk page for the flow chart would be best or you can email me directly. Unfortunately I am on holiday Saturday 6th - Thursday 11th so won't reply on those days but other members of staff will keep an eye out for any requests for info and if I can check in from a French campsite I will :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2014 (BST)

Tweaks to the front page Wordpress template

I just did some testing of the WMUK home page. Well done for embedding the Youtube video in a way that doesn't track the users!

A few quite minor things that could be changed in the template:

The "Welcome" top-level heading on the front page is a common error: it suggests to search engines that the word "welcome" is relevant to the content of the site. The heading does nothing at best, or dilutes the relevance of content search terms to the content of the site. Better to have "Wikimedia UK" as the h1 on that page: we want people searching for "Wikimedia UK" to find that page, don't we?

The source code contains <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="wikimedia.org.uk » Welcome Comments Feed" href="https://wikimedia.org.uk/wellcome/feed/" /> but this is a broken link, as is /welcome/feed/ and /feed/ . I don't think there's any need for this tag at all.

This og:description meta tag includes a sentence fragment: "We can teach you how to ...". The description would be fine without this.

These are minor quibbles but fixing them would help the appearance of the site in search engines. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2014 (BST)

Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development

Hello everyone. Wikimedia UK is considering signing the Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development. This is a very common sense document that calls on members of the EU to work to make access to information a priority as it is key to sustainable development and democracy. There is nothing controversial in there and I strongly recommend that we sign. Please do take a look and let me know if you have any serious objections. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2014 (BST)

Having had a look at the declaration and other signatories, this looks very much in line with our mission. The list of signatories, with many national libraries and professional bodies, seems to be substantially the sort of organisation we want to work with and show ourselves to be aligned with. No objections from me. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (BST)

I would also be happy to recommend supporting the declaration (this is a personal view, and I am here not speaking as chair).--MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)

Padmini Ray Murray steps down as trustee

As many in the community may already know, Padmini announced some time ago that she would be stepping down from her role as trustee in order to take up a new position teaching digital humanities at Srishti in Bangalore. Her final day as trustee will be Thursday 18th September. On behalf of us all, I'd like to thank her for the work she has done and wish her all the best for the future.

The board hopes to appoint a replacement trustee shortly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2014 (BST)

Volunteer job list

We are creating a list of volunteer jobs, some online, some at specific locations. Please check if there is anything you are up for, or make some suggestions.Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2014 (BST)

This is a really good idea. How to coordinate volunteers has always been an issue that we're not sure about. This is a good step in the right direction... and one that no on can disagree with and that should fit naturally with how Wikimedians work. Yaris678 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2014 (BST)

Preparations for EduWiki 2014

Edinburgh First's St Leonard's Hall - venue for EduWiki Conference 2014

Preparations for EduWiki Conference 2014 are now in full swing. The event will take place on Friday 31 October 2014 in Edinburgh. Registration is open until Monday 6 October; the reduced rate for Wikimedians and other concessions is £25. Details about accommodation options at and around the conference venue have also been released. A limited budget to support scholarships for the conference has been allocated and applications; please contact educationwikimedia.org.uk by Monday 29 September to apply for a scholarship.

Kindly direct any personal questions or concerns to me. We hope to see many members of the WMUK community at the conference, especially those who live within easy traveling distance from Edinburgh. --Toni Sant (WMUK) (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2014 (BST)

An opportunity at the Science Museum Late

Wikimedia UK has been in discussion with our friends at the Science Museum regarding taking part in a Science Museum Lates event on Wednesday 26 November. The theme of the event will be The Information Age to celebrate the opening of their new gallery on this theme in October. This gallery is a significant development, the biggest of its kind in the museum for more than a decade. Entry is free and the Late audience is going to be around 5,000 people, most between 18 and 35 and with a roughly equal gender balance.

The discussions are going well and we are now looking for suggestions of the kind of activities we could offer in the Museum during the evening event. If you have any ideas for events or displays - make them ambitious and exciting! - please comment here, or email Stevie Benton or me, and we will bring you on board to help make the plans and arrangements. It's also possible we will need some volunteers on the night. If you're keen to be involved, again, please do let us know.

Lates take place in the museum on the last Wednesday of every month. September's is about the science of magic and illusion, while October's is about food and drink, so drop in for a flavour (sorry) of how these events work.

So that we have enough time to prepare for November's Information Age Late, please give us your suggestions by the end of September. Roberta Wedge (WMUK) (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2014 (BST)

ORCID user template

{{User ORCID}} is now available, for those of you who have an ORCID identifier (and I encourage you to register for one). You can see an example on my user page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:31, 19 September 2014 (BST)

Volunteer Strategy

I have just put up the notes from our recent Volunteer Strategy Meeting. Please have a look here. Any comments welcome.Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2014 (BST)

Technology Scoping report

At the Board meeting on October 4th the trustees will be considering a report from an IT consultant on how the Chapter could develop its support of technical innovation. There are several options in the document. The board would be very keen to hear community opinions on the discussion page. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2014 (BST)