Meetings/2008-10-09/IRC
< Meetings
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
#wikimedia-uk-board
[2008-10-07 20:37:18] <KTC> right, let's start [2008-10-07 20:37:18] <AndrewRT> hey! [2008-10-07 20:37:23] <KTC> it's 20:33 BST :) [2008-10-07 20:37:35] <KTC> no apologies for absence seeing we're all here [2008-10-07 20:38:08] =-= Mode #wikimedia-uk-board +v Warofdreams by chanserv [2008-10-07 20:38:12] <AndrewRT> are we working off this agenda here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Board_meetings/2008-10-07/Agenda [2008-10-07 20:38:30] <KTC> yes [2008-10-07 20:38:39] <KTC> Warofdreams, identified to nickserv next time! :P [2008-10-07 20:39:11] <KTC> are everyone happy with the minutes of the last meeting? [2008-10-07 20:39:18] <AndrewRT> i am [2008-10-07 20:39:40] <AndrewRT> what does constitution mean on the agenda? [2008-10-07 20:40:03] <cfp> yup [2008-10-07 20:40:06] <KTC> starting the meeting [2008-10-07 20:40:10] <AndrewRT> o i c [2008-10-07 20:40:15] <mpeel> there was some confusion about whether we agreed to request the vote talleys or whether we were putting this to the community. Could that be clarified, please? [2008-10-07 20:40:26] <Warofdreams> Please note that [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Board_meetings/2008-10-02&oldid=1219073] is the correct version of the minutes - one minor change from the e-mailed version [2008-10-07 20:40:34] <cfp> i got the impression we were putting it to the community [2008-10-07 20:40:42] <mpeel> as did I [2008-10-07 20:40:47] <KTC> we did [2008-10-07 20:40:50] <KTC> let's change that [2008-10-07 20:40:52] <AndrewRT> as did I [2008-10-07 20:41:00] <Warofdreams> ok, no problem. [2008-10-07 20:41:42] <KTC> there's no problem apart from that, so that's approved as modified [2008-10-07 20:41:54] <Warofdreams> great. [2008-10-07 20:42:14] <KTC> 4.1 just to note the timetable has been amended as dicussed [2008-10-07 20:42:36] <KTC> and that it's an agenda item for this (and future) meeting as timetable review [2008-10-07 20:42:54] <KTC> 4.2 release of voting information [2008-10-07 20:43:01] <mpeel> for the record, I'm otherwise happy with the minutes of the last meeting... :) [2008-10-07 20:43:28] <Warofdreams> has been put to the e-mail list [2008-10-07 20:43:41] <KTC> it's been put forward to the community, there doesn't seems to be any objection raised, do we want to asked one of the elecom to release it ? [2008-10-07 20:43:53] <AndrewRT> yes i think we should [2008-10-07 20:44:17] <AndrewRT> could the comms person drop them a line from the Board? [2008-10-07 20:44:24] <AndrewRT> (mickey) [2008-10-07 20:44:26] * KTC look at Warofdreams [2008-10-07 20:44:32] <Warofdreams> yes, will do [2008-10-07 20:44:39] <AndrewRT> :) [2008-10-07 20:44:42] <Warofdreams> will action myself in the minutes [2008-10-07 20:44:46] <KTC> :) [2008-10-07 20:45:11] <KTC> 4.4 is CRB. mpeel has researched and got back to the mailing list [2008-10-07 20:45:14] <KTC> any thoughts? [2008-10-07 20:45:28] <AndrewRT> could you summarise for us mike? [2008-10-07 20:45:31] <mpeel> for the record, my response is at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2008-October/002880.html [2008-10-07 20:45:40] <mpeel> Basically: no obligation. [2008-10-07 20:45:52] <Warofdreams> remaining issue seems to be whether we have the right to request a CRB check, should we want to [2008-10-07 20:45:53] <mpeel> I'm currently unclear whether we can legally require, or request, it. [2008-10-07 20:46:17] <mpeel> I have emailed the ICO to ask, but have yet to hear a response. [2008-10-07 20:46:31] <mpeel> I will phone them prior to the next meeting if I don't hear back from them soon. [2008-10-07 20:46:31] <AndrewRT> do u have a view as to whether we should, if we could? [2008-10-07 20:47:04] <mpeel> I don't think it is necessary. [2008-10-07 20:47:38] <Warofdreams> my view is that we should, for the membership secretary, basically to show that we've taken all imaginable precautions [2008-10-07 20:47:47] <cfp> yeah i agree with wod [2008-10-07 20:47:54] <AndrewRT> is it a reasonable precaution? [2008-10-07 20:48:07] <KTC> it wouldn't hurt in the eyes of the CC [2008-10-07 20:48:12] <mpeel> The CRB check is primarily intended for people working with vulnerable people, rather than just those with contact details that include vulnerable people. [2008-10-07 20:48:37] <mpeel> I have no objections to undergoing a CRB check, but I don't think it is necessary. [2008-10-07 20:48:49] <KTC> let's delay this to the next meeting once we've hopefully heard back from the relevant body [2008-10-07 20:48:55] <KTC> to whether we actually can [2008-10-07 20:49:00] <mpeel> OK. [2008-10-07 20:49:00] <Warofdreams> agreed. [2008-10-07 20:49:03] <AndrewRT> ok [2008-10-07 20:49:41] <KTC> 4.5 DPA registration, i think that's been emailed around as well [2008-10-07 20:50:08] <mpeel> Does anyone disagree that we should hold off notifying the DPA until we're more established? [2008-10-07 20:50:19] <AndrewRT> i agree with holding off [2008-10-07 20:50:19] <mpeel> ... i.e. that we obey the terms of their exception until then? [2008-10-07 20:50:42] <Warofdreams> I agree, too. As I posted to the list, I think we should do this once we have money in the account. [2008-10-07 20:51:12] <KTC> cfp, you've been rather quiet, you happy with everything so far? [2008-10-07 20:52:16] <cfp> yeah i'm happy with holding off [2008-10-07 20:52:24] <cfp> sorry was multi-tasking a little. [2008-10-07 20:52:39] <KTC> 4.6, just to note the minute was promptly circulated, thank you [2008-10-07 20:52:44] <Warofdreams> :) I think that's why IRC meeting always last longer than expected [2008-10-07 20:52:50] <KTC> :D [2008-10-07 20:53:01] <KTC> right... 5, M&AoA [2008-10-07 20:53:35] <KTC> 5.1.1 * Name of the company which we'll be forming [2008-10-07 20:53:47] <AndrewRT> cfp - u wanted to drop the "Limited" from our name? [2008-10-07 20:53:53] <cfp> yeah [2008-10-07 20:54:02] <cfp> we're not obliged to have it in there [2008-10-07 20:54:08] <cfp> we might as well be as short as possible [2008-10-07 20:54:17] <AndrewRT> i agree we're not obliged [2008-10-07 20:54:30] <AndrewRT> being a charitable CLG [2008-10-07 20:54:45] <KTC> we're not obliged to have limited in the name, but if we drop it, we have to mention explicitly we're a limited company (and then charity as appropriate) in communication [2008-10-07 20:55:12] <KTC> so it doesn't actually save that much [2008-10-07 20:55:27] <AndrewRT> Some people see "Limited" and they think - they're incorporated, not just a fly-by-night association, with reporting obligations etc [2008-10-07 20:55:41] <AndrewRT> So it could enhance our image [2008-10-07 20:55:47] <mpeel> where does it say that we have to explicitly mention that we're a limited company/charity? [2008-10-07 20:56:17] <KTC> i saw it in either CC or CH website today, let me find it [2008-10-07 20:56:18] <Warofdreams> would be nice to not have to rely on remembering to include particular wording in communication, given that initially I imagine it'll mainly be by e-mail [2008-10-07 20:56:33] <cfp> i imagine when not calling ourselves just wikimedia uk we'd be writing (e.g.): "wiki uk, a charitable company limited by guarantee" [2008-10-07 20:57:15] <cfp> which sounds a lot better than "wiki uk limited, a charitable company" [2008-10-07 20:57:39] <cfp> and indeed we'd probably end up writing "wiki uk limited, a charitable company limited by guarantee" [2008-10-07 20:58:04] <AndrewRT> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20080495_en_1 7(2)(d) [2008-10-07 20:58:41] <AndrewRT> I'm happy with either including or not including - slight preference for including [2008-10-07 20:59:10] <mpeel> If we include it in our name, do we have to have it after "Wikimedia UK"? [2008-10-07 20:59:31] <AndrewRT> No. Wikimedia UK is our operating name [2008-10-07 20:59:56] <cfp> but on letters etc it sounds like we still have to say who we really are as well (and with that we will be saying limited) [2008-10-07 21:00:09] <Warofdreams> cfp: yes, that's my experience [2008-10-07 21:00:13] <AndrewRT> we need to put on our letters etc "Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK, a company limited by guarantee......" or something like that etc [2008-10-07 21:00:38] <KTC> can't find it, but yes, that's basically what the info said, about stating it in letters etc. [2008-10-07 21:00:47] <mpeel> does letters include email? [2008-10-07 21:01:03] <AndrewRT> yes letters include emails (where they are emails from the Board) [2008-10-07 21:01:09] <AndrewRT> it also includes websites [2008-10-07 21:01:26] <cfp> can i suggest we just vote on this [2008-10-07 21:01:35] <Warofdreams> 1. (2) (d) "a reference to any type of document is a reference to a document of that type in hard copy, electronic or any other form" [2008-10-07 21:01:39] <cfp> we all have fairly weak preferences [2008-10-07 21:01:52] * cfp votes for not including limited in the name. [2008-10-07 21:01:57] <mpeel> warofdreams: thanks, I missed that. [2008-10-07 21:02:30] <AndrewRT> Me: include [2008-10-07 21:03:05] <AndrewRT> wod, mike, ktc? [2008-10-07 21:03:28] <cfp> oh can i also make the point again that we'll be changing to a CIO soon [2008-10-07 21:03:36] <cfp> so we would no longer be a registered company [2008-10-07 21:03:46] <cfp> nor bound by those rules just linked to [2008-10-07 21:04:13] <KTC> Warofdreams, mpeel ? [2008-10-07 21:04:52] <Warofdreams> I really don't have a preference [2008-10-07 21:05:03] <mpeel> I abstain: it doesn't matter either way to me, although I would note that it would possibly be more elegant to leave it off. [2008-10-07 21:05:20] <KTC> *bang head against war* [2008-10-07 21:05:22] <AndrewRT> down to you KTC! [2008-10-07 21:05:24] <KTC> *wall [2008-10-07 21:05:31] <KTC> let's just include it, one less form to file [2008-10-07 21:05:49] <AndrewRT> that decided then [2008-10-07 21:06:03] <KTC> registered office location. Eng & Wales ? [2008-10-07 21:06:04] <Warofdreams> ow! [2008-10-07 21:06:18] <cfp> well until we have to change the name because we've become a CIO... [2008-10-07 21:06:28] <cfp> but whatever. [2008-10-07 21:06:41] <Warofdreams> KTC: yes, seems to be a consensus as to the reg office location - makes sense to me [2008-10-07 21:06:42] <AndrewRT> let's cross that bridge then [2008-10-07 21:06:46] <cfp> eng and wales sounds like the only sensible option [2008-10-07 21:06:51] <AndrewRT> i agree [2008-10-07 21:06:56] <mpeel> concur: england and wales [2008-10-07 21:07:00] <KTC> well, we could choose "England" (i think) [2008-10-07 21:07:13] <cfp> may as well be as broad as possible. [2008-10-07 21:07:16] <AndrewRT> would chapcom be happy with an E&W registered company being the chapter for the whole of UK? [2008-10-07 21:07:19] <mpeel> the only reason not to include wales would be if they wanted to set up their own chapter [2008-10-07 21:07:24] <Warofdreams> KTC: would there be any advantage in that? nobody has mentioned one? [2008-10-07 21:07:26] <AndrewRT> KTC: yes i understand you could [2008-10-07 21:07:40] <AndrewRT> WOD: no advantage whatsoever [2008-10-07 21:07:50] <KTC> AndrewRT, they have to if they were ever to accept a UK chapter [2008-10-07 21:08:12] <AndrewRT> good [2008-10-07 21:08:22] <mpeel> They accepted WMUK1, and they were based solely in England [2008-10-07 21:08:29] <AndrewRT> ok [2008-10-07 21:08:33] <AndrewRT> r we all agreed? [2008-10-07 21:08:49] <Warofdreams> mpeel: good point. Straightforward decision. [2008-10-07 21:08:51] <KTC> you can't registered a company in the whole of UK seeing eng&wales and scot operates under different law [2008-10-07 21:08:55] <KTC> *legal system [2008-10-07 21:09:14] <KTC> right, objectives [2008-10-07 21:09:47] <AndrewRT> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Objectives sets out two approaches [2008-10-07 21:10:16] <AndrewRT> 1) Single sentence encumpassing CC "promotion of education" and WMF mission [2008-10-07 21:10:37] <AndrewRT> 2) Eight points expanding on this [2008-10-07 21:11:10] <AndrewRT> I proposed (1) mainly because I think it would be easier to justify to the CC and WMF that we meet their criteria [2008-10-07 21:11:13] <cfp> there's no reason we can't combine the two as a third option [2008-10-07 21:11:30] <cfp> but much harder to justify to the CC and very legally restrictive [2008-10-07 21:11:31] <AndrewRT> i think that might be best [2008-10-07 21:11:36] <Warofdreams> Approach 2 (or 3) has the advantage that there is less chance of arguments later over whether an activity really is included. [2008-10-07 21:11:49] <mpeel> If it's legally OK, then I like the idea of going for (1) but having (2) as our informal/non-legal objectives [2008-10-07 21:11:51] <cfp> wmuk 1.0's list has already past the wmf [2008-10-07 21:12:11] <cfp> wouldn't the other way round be more sensible? [2008-10-07 21:12:12] <AndrewRT> AFAIK it didn't pass the CC though [2008-10-07 21:12:22] <Warofdreams> was it ever put to the CC? [2008-10-07 21:12:22] <KTC> it never got that far [2008-10-07 21:12:29] <mpeel> CC? [2008-10-07 21:12:36] <cfp> charity commision [2008-10-07 21:12:52] <mpeel> ty - I wasn't sure whether it was that or Chapters Committee [2008-10-07 21:13:01] <AndrewRT> oh yes good point! [2008-10-07 21:13:02] -->| MrWeeble (n=chatzill@87-194-70-98.bethere.co.uk) has joined #wikimedia-uk-board [2008-10-07 21:13:05] <KTC> i like option 3. let me write it up now on wiki [2008-10-07 21:13:23] <cfp> it's there already [2008-10-07 21:13:25] <cfp> in section 2 [2008-10-07 21:13:25] <Warofdreams> Should we mention the Wikimedia Foundation in the objects? [2008-10-07 21:13:42] <cfp> i put it up as our objects, someone moved it to being our informal objects [2008-10-07 21:13:58] <AndrewRT> advice on teh email list was no [2008-10-07 21:14:01] <cfp> i think we probably shouldn't. [2008-10-07 21:14:05] <mpeel> Is that allowed by ChapCom, in terms of being completely independent of the Wikimedia Foundation? [2008-10-07 21:14:20] <Warofdreams> so maybe point 2 would need reworking? [2008-10-07 21:14:21] <cfp> those top two were added by me a long time ago [2008-10-07 21:14:22] <KTC> the CharComm have no problem with wording such as in option 2 now [2008-10-07 21:14:25] <AndrewRT> WMF is a foreign charity not regulated by the CharityC [2008-10-07 21:14:36] <KTC> i copied the wording from their website advice [2008-10-07 21:14:46] <Warofdreams> ok, that's good news [2008-10-07 21:14:50] <KTC> # ''the advancement of education for all in particular by supporting the charitable work of the Wikimedia Foundation; [2008-10-07 21:16:21] <cfp> i've made a change in section 2 with a possible wording [2008-10-07 21:16:57] <cfp> but perhaps they're now reduntant as wmuk 1.0s goals were so broad [2008-10-07 21:17:12] <AndrewRT> can we keep the two sections separate - Legal Objects and then goals [2008-10-07 21:17:41] <KTC> you can have, and i copy and past from an existing charity [2008-10-07 21:17:47] <cfp> well we don't care about goals for now [2008-10-07 21:17:51] <KTC> "The charity's objects are ........" [2008-10-07 21:18:00] <KTC> "Without prejudice to the generality of the objects stated in [] hereof for the avoidance of doubt, the charity shall, in pursuance of the said objects, have power to:" [2008-10-07 21:18:05] <KTC> and then expand [2008-10-07 21:18:22] <AndrewRT> Is that the option 3 you were mentioning? [2008-10-07 21:18:32] <KTC> yeah [2008-10-07 21:19:13] <AndrewRT> cfp: I think it's necessary to have this section here to stop people adding to the legal list in a way that causes problems later [2008-10-07 21:19:43] <cfp> just added a goals section [2008-10-07 21:19:56] <cfp> but most of the original objects are in legalese and so are inappropriate to be goals [2008-10-07 21:20:20] <mpeel> Tango42's raised a good point in #wikimedia-uk for those that haven't been watching it: we should mention "advancement of heritage" somewhere in the objectives. [2008-10-07 21:20:43] <AndrewRT> interesting idea [2008-10-07 21:22:00] <AndrewRT> KTC r u still drafting option 3? [2008-10-07 21:22:14] <KTC> sec [2008-10-07 21:22:36] <cfp> added a heritage blurb [2008-10-07 21:24:44] <KTC> i have copy & pasted something in atm [2008-10-07 21:24:50] <KTC> prob need rewording [2008-10-07 21:24:51] <Warofdreams> does the heritage need to be specific to the UK? or could we mention the UK but make it a general objective to preserve heritage? [2008-10-07 21:24:52] <KTC> streamlining [2008-10-07 21:25:15] <AndrewRT> Adding heritage to option (1) could give: "The charity's objects are the promotion of education for all and the advancement of heritage by empowering and engaging people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate educational content and heritage resources under a free license or in the public domain" [2008-10-07 21:25:40] <cfp> i'm not convinced by the split in the objects [2008-10-07 21:28:04] <KTC> right, which one r we going for [2008-10-07 21:28:09] <KTC> we do kinda need to decide that [2008-10-07 21:28:24] <cfp> i thought we'd alll agreed on the compbined approach a long time ago [2008-10-07 21:28:27] <AndrewRT> i support three because it gives the detail without restricting us [2008-10-07 21:29:12] <cfp> but whether we split the objects in two as in ktc's version of 3 is up for date perhaps [2008-10-07 21:29:23] <Warofdreams> suggestion from Mr Weeble on #wikimedia-uk: "if we mention the word "wiki" should we not add somewhere what a wiki is, that is a collection of information that is freely and collaboratively editable by it's users. In fact if we phrased it as something like that, it would free us to support collections of information held in other formats (eg OpenStreetMap)" [2008-10-07 21:29:42] <AndrewRT> would #8 pass the exclusively charitable test? [2008-10-07 21:29:50] <AndrewRT> WOD: yes i think that's a good idea [2008-10-07 21:30:04] <cfp> yup seems sensible [2008-10-07 21:30:08] <KTC> i'm not conviced [2008-10-07 21:30:14] <KTC> *about 8 [2008-10-07 21:30:24] <cfp> we need 8 [2008-10-07 21:30:28] <cfp> and we need it as an object [2008-10-07 21:30:42] <AndrewRT> WOD: except we dont mention "wiki" anywhere in the objects [2008-10-07 21:30:44] <KTC> i mean in its current wording [2008-10-07 21:32:02] <KTC> "Undertake any enterprise or business and generally do all such other things as may be conducive to promoting the objects of the charity." ? [2008-10-07 21:32:16] <AndrewRT> i wld prefer that [2008-10-07 21:32:36] <Warofdreams> Andrew: Perhaps we should mention "wiki" [2008-10-07 21:33:00] <AndrewRT> yes it would make sense! [2008-10-07 21:34:00] <AndrewRT> perhaps #5 "to produce, publish and develop, or cause to be produced, published and developed, information resources, whether in printed, electronic, or other forms;" [2008-10-07 21:34:02] <AndrewRT> make it: [2008-10-07 21:34:04] <AndrewRT> "to produce, publish and develop, or cause to be produced, published and developed, information resources, whether on a wiki, in printed form or in other electronic form" [2008-10-07 21:34:23] <AndrewRT> and then end with "where a wiki is a collection of information that is freely and collaboratively editable by it's users" [2008-10-07 21:34:48] <mpeel> I'd argue that a wiki is the method, rather than the product [2008-10-07 21:35:06] <mpeel> hence doesn't really fit in with "printed form" and "other electronic form"... [2008-10-07 21:35:16] <AndrewRT> via a wiki? [2008-10-07 21:35:30] <mpeel> that sounds better [2008-10-07 21:35:57] <AndrewRT> "to produce, publish and develop, or cause to be produced, published and developed, information resources, whether via a wiki, in printed form or in other electronic form" [2008-10-07 21:36:09] <cfp> added in a draft removing mentions of wikis [2008-10-07 21:36:51] <cfp> umm i kind of agree with mr.weeble's comment [2008-10-07 21:36:58] <cfp> we don't want to tie ourselves down to wikis [2008-10-07 21:37:50] <KTC> "in printed form or in other electronic form" already cover everything [2008-10-07 21:37:52] <Warofdreams> no, but I think it would be good to mention them somewhere [2008-10-07 21:38:17] <cfp> (from sec 2) [2008-10-07 21:38:18] <cfp> # to promote freely accessible online information repositories whose content is freely and collaboratively editable; [2008-10-07 21:38:18] <cfp> # to act as a voice and representative for the community of UK citizens who use and edit such repositories; [2008-10-07 21:38:18] <cfp> # to preserve the heritage of the UK through such repositories; [2008-10-07 21:38:26] <AndrewRT> i like cfp's solution [2008-10-07 21:38:26] <mpeel> "wether via a freely and collaboratively editable medium, for example a wiki, in printed ..."? [2008-10-07 21:38:35] <cfp> i think that's as close to mentioning wikis as we need to be [2008-10-07 21:39:04] <Warofdreams> fair enough - it describes a wiki without naming it [2008-10-07 21:39:28] <mpeel> I also like cfp's solution [2008-10-07 21:39:42] <KTC> cfp third #, do we want to limit our heritage advacement ot UK ? [2008-10-07 21:39:49] <mpeel> possibly adding ", for example a wiki" onto the first one of those, for clarity [2008-10-07 21:39:55] <cfp> well maybe "particularly that of the UK" [2008-10-07 21:40:06] <Warofdreams> yes, I like that [2008-10-07 21:40:19] <AndrewRT> i've added the words to option 3 [2008-10-07 21:40:52] <Warofdreams> so - two remaining issues? [2008-10-07 21:40:57] <Warofdreams> wording of #8 [2008-10-07 21:41:10] <mpeel> what is the "[]" in the second paragraph of the objectives? [2008-10-07 21:41:22] <cfp> i've incorporated those suggestions in sec 2 [2008-10-07 21:41:24] <KTC> there would be numbering in the actual document [2008-10-07 21:41:25] <AndrewRT> reference to the article number [2008-10-07 21:41:32] <mpeel> ok, thanks [2008-10-07 21:41:35] <Warofdreams> and whether to use approach 3 or an entirely list-based approach [2008-10-07 21:41:36] <cfp> the problem perhaps with saying "such as a wiki" [2008-10-07 21:41:59] <cfp> is that "wiki" is not really a term in the english language as lawyer's understand it [2008-10-07 21:42:13] <cfp> so it's potentially problematic. [2008-10-07 21:42:15] <mpeel> Haven't the OED added it yet? [2008-10-07 21:42:20] <cfp> (unless we define it) [2008-10-07 21:42:27] <cfp> and i'm not sure what it adds [2008-10-07 21:42:58] <cfp> apparently the oed has added it [2008-10-07 21:43:04] <cfp> i just checked. i stand corrected. [2008-10-07 21:43:15] <cfp> i'm not sure i can quote it here for legal reasons. [2008-10-07 21:44:11] <KTC> someone want to edit it to fit in with what MrWeeble & Tango42 is saying [2008-10-07 21:45:20] <AndrewRT> to what? UK residents? [2008-10-07 21:45:25] <KTC> yes [2008-10-07 21:46:07] <AndrewRT> done [2008-10-07 21:46:22] <KTC> right, can we get a move on this subject [2008-10-07 21:46:26] <KTC> we've been on it for a while [2008-10-07 21:46:28] <Warofdreams> cfp: does the OED definition sound reasonable to you? (I don't have access) not overly restrictive? [2008-10-07 21:46:31] <AndrewRT> Can we first vote on the approach [2008-10-07 21:46:52] <mpeel> UK citizens and residents would be better, to include those that aren't currently residing in the uk... [2008-10-07 21:46:53] <AndrewRT> i.e. approach (3) or approach (2)? [2008-10-07 21:47:38] <AndrewRT> mpeel: changed [2008-10-07 21:47:57] <cfp> for the minutes: the follwing is copyright Oxford University Press and should be removed from any text which is not compatible with this [2008-10-07 21:48:18] <cfp> "wiki n. Computing: A type of web page designed so that its content can be edited by anyone who accesses it, using a simplified markup language." [2008-10-07 21:49:28] <KTC> right, getting a move on. option 1, 2, or 3 as stated on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Objectives ? [2008-10-07 21:49:44] <AndrewRT> I vote option 3 [2008-10-07 21:49:49] <mpeel> option 3 [2008-10-07 21:49:52] <Warofdreams> I vote option 3 [2008-10-07 21:50:24] <mpeel> ... assuming that we are voting for the method, not for the specific text [2008-10-07 21:50:30] <KTC> mpeel, yes [2008-10-07 21:50:30] <AndrewRT> yes [2008-10-07 21:50:36] <cfp> yeah 3, but i'm not sure about the wording separating the two blocks of objects [2008-10-07 21:50:41] <cfp> or if it's necessary at all [2008-10-07 21:50:48] <AndrewRT> all agreed then [2008-10-07 21:50:52] <KTC> okay, so we agree option 3, but the text need to be worked on [2008-10-07 21:51:02] <AndrewRT> I'll remove the other options so it's clearer [2008-10-07 21:51:08] <cfp> i don't think we should keep 4 [2008-10-07 21:51:16] <cfp> point 4 that is [2008-10-07 21:51:23] <KTC> support WMF ? [2008-10-07 21:51:26] <cfp> yeah [2008-10-07 21:51:36] <cfp> i think we've covered our bases more generally. [2008-10-07 21:51:43] <mpeel> We should put the text up for discussion on the mailing list before deciding on it. [2008-10-07 21:52:16] <Warofdreams> mpeel: definitely; we've changed it quite a bit [2008-10-07 21:52:22] <mpeel> can I suggest that further discussion on this is done via the mailing list? [2008-10-07 21:53:03] <AndrewRT> if we do this we'll miss our next deadline [2008-10-07 21:53:18] <AndrewRT> send Mem&Arts to ChapCom by Sat 11th [2008-10-07 21:53:54] <mpeel> can we do that without having a final version of the objectives at that point? [2008-10-07 21:54:04] <cfp> the main list of "powers" aren't actually powers [2008-10-07 21:54:12] <cfp> they're further objects.. [2008-10-07 21:54:57] <AndrewRT> sorry, what list of powers? [2008-10-07 21:55:19] <KTC> MoA [2008-10-07 21:55:19] <Warofdreams> re: missing deadline, one possibility would be to get the agreement of the directors to the final form of the M&A by e-mail on Fri or Sat [2008-10-07 21:55:19] <AndrewRT> u mean these: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/MoA#Powers [2008-10-07 21:55:19] <cfp> shouldn't it instead be something like "we understand this object to cover but not be constituted by the following sub-objectives:" [2008-10-07 21:55:31] <cfp> no. [2008-10-07 21:55:46] <cfp> "Without prejudice to the generality of the objects stated in [clause 1] hereof for the avoidance of doubt, the charity shall, in pursuance of the said objects, have power:" [2008-10-07 21:55:52] <AndrewRT> i see [2008-10-07 21:55:52] <cfp> what follows that are "powers" [2008-10-07 21:56:04] <cfp> i don't see why we don't just have a single list. [2008-10-07 21:56:55] <AndrewRT> because this way if in ten years time we come up with something we didn't think of whih isn't in the list we can still do it [2008-10-07 21:56:58] <KTC> okay, we should merge those objctives into the MoA draft [2008-10-07 21:57:03] <KTC> because it doesn't flow [2008-10-07 21:57:10] <mpeel> how about: "In order to fulfil these objectives, we aim to:" [2008-10-07 21:57:53] <Warofdreams> KTC: but they don't fit well with the Powers section of the MoA [2008-10-07 21:58:01] <cfp> because they're not powers... [2008-10-07 21:58:05] <KTC> Warofdreams, that's what i mean [2008-10-07 21:58:06] <cfp> they're objects... [2008-10-07 21:58:18] <KTC> um, it says powers atm cuz i copy and pasted it [2008-10-07 21:58:26] <KTC> change it [2008-10-07 21:58:33] <cfp> it will be no easier to edit that list of sub-objects than it would be to edit the list of objects [2008-10-07 21:58:58] <cfp> how about: [2008-10-07 21:59:06] <cfp> "The charity's chief objective is blah:" [2008-10-07 21:59:21] <cfp> "in pursuing this objective the charity will also aim to: blah" [2008-10-07 21:59:30] <KTC> ok [2008-10-07 21:59:41] <Warofdreams> can we cut "also" from that [2008-10-07 22:00:02] <Warofdreams> sounds as thought they might not be included in the main objective [2008-10-07 22:00:07] <Warofdreams> *though [2008-10-07 22:00:43] <KTC> drop the chief as well, unless you have a non-chief obectives [2008-10-07 22:00:49] <KTC> *objectives [2008-10-07 22:00:59] <AndrewRT> merged the words into the M&A [2008-10-07 22:01:06] <cfp> well in that case we may as well just have one list... [2008-10-07 22:02:32] <AndrewRT> How about: [2008-10-07 22:02:34] <AndrewRT> "Without prejudice to the generality of the objects stated above hereof for the avoidance of doubt, the charity may:" [2008-10-07 22:02:36] <AndrewRT> And then drop the "to"s at the start [2008-10-07 22:03:59] <Warofdreams> isn't that moving it closer to being a list of powers [2008-10-07 22:04:29] <AndrewRT> "Without prejudice to the generality of the objects stated above hereof for the avoidance of doubt, the charity shall:" [2008-10-07 22:04:51] <AndrewRT> "Without prejudice to the generality of the objects stated above hereof for the avoidance of doubt, the charity's objects shall include:" [2008-10-07 22:05:09] <cfp> can i just get clarification on something first: [2008-10-07 22:05:21] <cfp> where did the idea of splitting the objects list like this come from in the first place? [2008-10-07 22:05:25] <cfp> did you see some example? [2008-10-07 22:05:29] <AndrewRT> KTC? [2008-10-07 22:05:59] <KTC> constitution of a scottish charity under the section (as i've just read) objects and powers [2008-10-07 22:06:00] <cfp> if it's not a standard thing to do i think it's kind of silly rather. there's no good reason not to just have one list as far as i've heard. [2008-10-07 22:06:58] <cfp> we're just opening ourselves up to a whole load of legal trouble and trouble with the CC [2008-10-07 22:07:17] <AndrewRT> CC's Example objects are here: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/registration/exobjhome.asp [2008-10-07 22:07:36] <AndrewRT> They all seem to be single sentence - no lists [2008-10-07 22:07:42] <cfp> What are objects? [2008-10-07 22:07:42] <cfp> 49. The objects set out what a charity is set up to do. They should therefore be described clearly and unambiguously in the governing document, using words with a commonly accepted meaning. A charity may have more than one object. [2008-10-07 22:07:42] <cfp> 50. It is important to remember that: [2008-10-07 22:07:42] <cfp> * all of the objects must be charitable for the public benefit, because if any aspect of them is not, the organisation cannot be accepted as a charity because it will not be exclusively charitable; [2008-10-07 22:07:43] <cfp> * the objects should reflect what the organisation intends to do; and [2008-10-07 22:07:46] <cfp> * the objects should be understandable [2008-10-07 22:07:51] <KTC> well AndrewRT, they're list of single sentences [2008-10-07 22:08:54] <cfp> this might serve as a model for us perhaps? [2008-10-07 22:08:55] <cfp> http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/registration/exobj29.asp [2008-10-07 22:08:58] <AndrewRT> except for this one: [2008-10-07 22:09:00] <AndrewRT> Promotion of Human Rights [2008-10-07 22:09:01] <AndrewRT> “To promote human rights (as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent United Nations conventions and declarations) throughout the world by all or any of the following means: [2008-10-07 22:09:03] <AndrewRT> * Monitoring abuses of human rights; [2008-10-07 22:09:05] <AndrewRT> * Obtaining redress for the victims of human rights abuse; [2008-10-07 22:09:06] <cfp> (if you're desperate for some reason to have two lists) [2008-10-07 22:09:06] <AndrewRT> * Relieving need among the victims of human rights abuse; [2008-10-07 22:09:07] <AndrewRT> * Research into human rights issues; [2008-10-07 22:09:09] <AndrewRT> * Providing technical advice to government and others on human rights matters; [2008-10-07 22:09:11] <AndrewRT> * Contributing to the sound administration of human rights law; [2008-10-07 22:09:12] <AndrewRT> * Commenting on proposed human rights legislation; [2008-10-07 22:09:13] <AndrewRT> * Raising awareness of human rights issues; [2008-10-07 22:09:15] <AndrewRT> * Promoting public support for human rights; [2008-10-07 22:09:16] <AndrewRT> * Promoting respect for human rights among individuals and corporations; [2008-10-07 22:09:18] <AndrewRT> * International advocacy of human rights; [2008-10-07 22:09:20] <AndrewRT> * Eliminating infringements of human rights. [2008-10-07 22:09:42] <KTC> i really want to get a move on, we've been at this for a while. i would like to suggest we miss the timetable for a few days and carry on discussion for objectives on the mailing list and agree on it next week while we agree the other bits now [2008-10-07 22:09:55] <Warofdreams> ok, so what about "The charity's objects are the promotion of education and advancement of heritage for all by empowering and engaging people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate educational content and heritage resources under a free license or in the public domain, by all or any of the following means:" [2008-10-07 22:10:10] <cfp> yeah that sounds sensible. [2008-10-07 22:10:15] <AndrewRT> i was just about to suggest that! [2008-10-07 22:10:52] <KTC> this was a great example of why drafting by committee doesn't work ;) [2008-10-07 22:10:53] <mpeel> That sounds similar to my suggestion of 15 minutes ago, so I'm all for it. [2008-10-07 22:11:11] <cfp> sorry mpeel, must have missed that [2008-10-07 22:11:30] <cfp> tango asks if we want a "not exclusively" in there [2008-10-07 22:11:32] <Warofdreams> "... by means to include all or any of the following:" [2008-10-07 22:11:37] <mpeel> cfp: for clarity, I was referring to KTC's suggestion [2008-10-07 22:11:59] <KTC> mpeel, sorry, we missed that [2008-10-07 22:12:22] <KTC> right, next point on the agenda [2008-10-07 22:12:30] <KTC> which we *were* doing so well in... [2008-10-07 22:12:59] <KTC> happy with "Clause 4 - Powers" of the MoA? [2008-10-07 22:13:04] <KTC> it's currently the standard text [2008-10-07 22:13:24] <AndrewRT> I am yes [2008-10-07 22:13:27] <Warofdreams> me too [2008-10-07 22:13:41] <mpeel> yes [2008-10-07 22:14:09] <AndrewRT> I'm also happy with membership [2008-10-07 22:14:38] <KTC> um AndrewRT, you missed the section in between ;) [2008-10-07 22:14:47] <AndrewRT> did I? [2008-10-07 22:14:56] <KTC> there's a Application of property [2008-10-07 22:15:16] <AndrewRT> so I did - I'm happy with that too! [2008-10-07 22:15:19] <AndrewRT> :) [2008-10-07 22:15:28] <mpeel> Can we clarify membership: is this guarantor, or supporting as well? [2008-10-07 22:15:33] <Warofdreams> I'm also happy with Application of Property [2008-10-07 22:15:36] <KTC> membership of the company [2008-10-07 22:15:39] <AndrewRT> no - just guarantor [2008-10-07 22:15:39] <cfp> is there much point going on with the rest of the MoA if we're resigned to not signing off on the objects tonight? [2008-10-07 22:15:44] <Warofdreams> "Reference to 'members' in this document is a reference to Guarantor Members" [2008-10-07 22:15:52] <AndrewRT> supporters have no legal standing [2008-10-07 22:15:54] <KTC> cfp, the other bit of MoA is just standard text [2008-10-07 22:16:15] <mpeel> ok, then we shouldn't call them supporting members. [2008-10-07 22:16:32] <Warofdreams> yes. would be clearer to call them "friends" [2008-10-07 22:16:35] <Warofdreams> or similar [2008-10-07 22:16:53] <KTC> you *can* have members of the company that have no voting rights... [2008-10-07 22:16:55] <KTC> anyhow [2008-10-07 22:17:13] <KTC> are everyone happy with the MoA apart from the objectives parts? [2008-10-07 22:17:28] <Warofdreams> I am [2008-10-07 22:17:47] <AndrewRT> iam [2008-10-07 22:17:57] <mpeel> yes [2008-10-07 22:18:51] <KTC> AoA [2008-10-07 22:19:34] <mpeel> will objectives get pushed further without someone being nominated to take care of them / have an action on them? [2008-10-07 22:20:07] <cfp> i'm right in thinking that the MoA text on the wiki is entirely lifted from the example one and has taken the permissive option [2008-10-07 22:20:24] <KTC> cfp, only modification i can see is the £10 -> £1 [2008-10-07 22:20:38] <cfp> to be honest i think we should just either bang them out tonight, or arrange to reconvene tomorrow evening [2008-10-07 22:20:57] <AndrewRT> I'd like to get them out tonight [2008-10-07 22:21:06] <KTC> AndrewRT, what? objectives? [2008-10-07 22:21:16] <AndrewRT> no, the M&A [2008-10-07 22:21:25] <KTC> which includes the objectives... [2008-10-07 22:21:59] <Warofdreams> why don't we run through the MoA and see if there are any major issues with it, then we can see what's possible [2008-10-07 22:22:10] <Warofdreams> AoA, rather [2008-10-07 22:22:21] <KTC> like i was going to say [2008-10-07 22:22:26] <AndrewRT> except the objectives [2008-10-07 22:22:26] <KTC> clause 1. Introduction [2008-10-07 22:22:32] <KTC> "Interpretation." rather [2008-10-07 22:22:33] <cfp> i'm going afk one min. brb [2008-10-07 22:22:44] <AndrewRT> under "interpretation" I've proposed an expanded interpretation to permit us give notices to members via their talk pages [2008-10-07 22:22:55] <AndrewRT> it doesn't force us, it just permits us [2008-10-07 22:23:22] <AndrewRT> (btw, all revisions to the standard text are underlined) [2008-10-07 22:23:51] <AndrewRT> this is so we can still give notices where members join up and dont want to give us their email address [2008-10-07 22:24:09] <Warofdreams> some people on list seem to want assurances that talk page notification won't happen without their consent. can we phrase this to demonstrate that? [2008-10-07 22:24:49] <KTC> "in each case registered with the charity" [2008-10-07 22:25:03] <KTC> one can just not registered said talk page with the charity as contact [2008-10-07 22:26:02] <mpeel> Wikimedia should be capital. Possibly "in a project run by the Wikimedia Foundation"? [2008-10-07 22:26:30] <Warofdreams> KTC: it could work, provided the membership form is clear that we might communicate by any means of contact given, so not to provide details which they don't want it used as their official contact [2008-10-07 22:26:33] <cfp> i am against any mention of wikipedia or wikimedia [2008-10-07 22:26:43] <cfp> not least mentions of talk pages. [2008-10-07 22:27:10] <cfp> i'd be prepared to have something like "or any other notification method to which the member had explicitly consented" [2008-10-07 22:27:34] <KTC> that cld work [2008-10-07 22:27:54] <AndrewRT> im fine with that [2008-10-07 22:28:06] <mpeel> "had" -> "has", otherwise fine [2008-10-07 22:28:17] <Warofdreams> yes to mpeel's phrasing [2008-10-07 22:28:52] <AndrewRT> ive put the change up [2008-10-07 22:29:05] <AndrewRT> all agreed? [2008-10-07 22:29:12] <KTC> yep :) [2008-10-07 22:29:18] <Warofdreams> yes [2008-10-07 22:29:18] <mpeel> possibly also needs "electronic notification method", otherwise we could pass messages to people by word of mouth in the pub... [2008-10-07 22:29:39] <KTC> mpeel, explicitly consented [2008-10-07 22:29:54] <KTC> not unless that the person explicitly say word of mouth in the pub is fine... [2008-10-07 22:30:29] <AndrewRT> the notification would need to be written [2008-10-07 22:30:32] <cfp> shouldn't clause 3)1) still say "and shall record the rights and obligations in the register of members" as the sample AoA does [2008-10-07 22:30:38] <AndrewRT> so that it could be verified [2008-10-07 22:30:39] <cfp> (sorry i'm just catching up) [2008-10-07 22:30:51] <AndrewRT> it's in 3.2 [2008-10-07 22:30:56] <cfp> doh [2008-10-07 22:30:59] <cfp> i'm being retarded [2008-10-07 22:31:04] <AndrewRT> np [2008-10-07 22:31:04] <cfp> i just noticed that. sorry. [2008-10-07 22:31:07] <AndrewRT> it's getting late" [2008-10-07 22:31:09] <AndrewRT> ! [2008-10-07 22:31:19] <KTC> ow, i hadn't got to that yet! [2008-10-07 22:31:20] <KTC> :D [2008-10-07 22:31:28] <KTC> right, clause 3 ! :P [2008-10-07 22:31:30] <AndrewRT> ok [2008-10-07 22:31:38] <mpeel> "or any other verifiable notification method"? [2008-10-07 22:32:00] <mpeel> or should I give up with that reductio ad absurdum? [2008-10-07 22:32:39] <KTC> are people happy with the modification to the standard text made to clause 3 ? [2008-10-07 22:33:01] <mpeel> I'm fine with clause 3 [2008-10-07 22:33:20] <AndrewRT> Generally the model arts give lots of powers to the directors [2008-10-07 22:33:36] <AndrewRT> I've proposed a few cases where i think these powers shoudl reside with members in our case [2008-10-07 22:33:39] <AndrewRT> this is one [2008-10-07 22:34:01] <KTC> i'm guessing you're happy with it AndrewRT. cfp, Warofdreams ? [2008-10-07 22:34:03] <Warofdreams> can "fax number, e-mail address, text message number", etc be described as "notification method"s? I like the intention of the new clause 3, but I'm not sure it's good English [2008-10-07 22:34:19] <cfp> sorry i didn't actually realise it was in 1 we were making the change. it's not really english as it stands, a "notification method" is not in the same category as a "mobile phone number" [2008-10-07 22:34:25] <cfp> great minds... [2008-10-07 22:35:01] <Warofdreams> cfp: how would you describe the category? a term escapes me... [2008-10-07 22:35:03] <AndrewRT> r we on Clause 3 or bullet point 3? [2008-10-07 22:35:09] <Warofdreams> bullet point 3 [2008-10-07 22:35:11] <mpeel> Both, I think... [2008-10-07 22:35:40] <AndrewRT> KTC? [2008-10-07 22:35:51] <Warofdreams> I'm fine with Clause 3, but am still debating bullet point 3 [2008-10-07 22:35:52] <KTC> sigh, it seems both. right, back to clause 1, point 3 [2008-10-07 22:36:00] <cfp> sorry... [2008-10-07 22:36:46] <Warofdreams> ok, does anyone have a better term for the category, as "notification method" isn't right. [2008-10-07 22:37:26] <cfp> "or any other notification reciept location at which the member has explicitly consented to receiving notifications" [2008-10-07 22:37:54] <mpeel> "avenue of communication" [2008-10-07 22:37:55] <mpeel> ? [2008-10-07 22:38:13] <cfp> it has to be in some sense akin to an address [2008-10-07 22:38:16] <Warofdreams> "electronic point of contact"? [2008-10-07 22:38:30] <KTC> remember we're defining what "address" mean in the AoA [2008-10-07 22:38:40] <KTC> so cfp's probably closest [2008-10-07 22:39:07] <AndrewRT> "address" means a postal address or, for the purposes of electronic communication, a fax number, an e-mail or postal address, a text message number or any other avenue of communication to which the member has explicitly consented in each case registered with the charity; [2008-10-07 22:39:29] <AndrewRT> "address" means a postal address or, for the purposes of electronic communication, a fax number, an e-mail or postal address, a text message number or any other electronic point of contact to which the member has explicitly consented in each case registered with the charity; [2008-10-07 22:39:55] <mpeel> needs a comma after "consented" [2008-10-07 22:39:57] <AndrewRT> "address" means a postal address or, for the purposes of electronic communication, a fax number, an e-mail or postal address, a text message number or any other notification reciept location to which the member has explicitly consented in each case registered with the charity; [2008-10-07 22:40:34] <AndrewRT> mpeel: yes [2008-10-07 22:40:41] <cfp> i think you need "to receiving messages" after explicitly consented [2008-10-07 22:41:26] <AndrewRT> which one? [2008-10-07 22:41:46] <cfp> in all 3 of those options. [2008-10-07 22:42:07] <Warofdreams> does anyone have a preference between the three suggestions? [2008-10-07 22:42:07] <AndrewRT> which option should we go with? [2008-10-07 22:42:11] <mpeel> "electronic point of contact" is the best one of those three from my pov. [2008-10-07 22:42:13] <cfp> 2 or 3 [2008-10-07 22:42:29] <AndrewRT> point of contact my favorite too [2008-10-07 22:42:30] <KTC> electronic point of contact [2008-10-07 22:42:38] <AndrewRT> that's decided then [2008-10-07 22:42:40] <cfp> why do we have "e-mail or postal address" [2008-10-07 22:42:50] <KTC> it's what the standard text say lol [2008-10-07 22:42:53] <cfp> a postal address isn't electronic. [2008-10-07 22:42:55] <cfp> odd [2008-10-07 22:43:00] <AndrewRT> "address" means a postal address or, for the purposes of electronic communication, a fax number, an e-mail or postal address, a text message number or any other electronic point of contact to which the member has explicitly consented to receiving messages, in each case registered with the charity; [2008-10-07 22:43:11] <AndrewRT> a postal address OR .... [2008-10-07 22:43:35] <KTC> AndrewRT, the point is a "postal address" for "electronic communication" [2008-10-07 22:43:58] <cfp> i guess it just means that they count post as electronic communication as well. [2008-10-07 22:44:13] <KTC> right, wording as latest proposed by AndrewRT [2008-10-07 22:44:16] <AndrewRT> > "address" means a postal address or, for the purposes of electronic communication, a fax number, an e-mail address, a text message number or any other electronic point of contact to which the member has explicitly consented to receiving messages, in each case registered with the charity; [2008-10-07 22:44:17] <Warofdreams> I suppose it permits us to send a telemessage [2008-10-07 22:44:28] <cfp> "point of contact AT which the member..." [2008-10-07 22:44:32] <Warofdreams> but I can't imagine we'd ever do that [2008-10-07 22:44:33] <cfp> (to should be at) [2008-10-07 22:44:39] <Warofdreams> or anyone would, other than the Queen [2008-10-07 22:44:46] <AndrewRT> "address" means a postal address or, for the purposes of electronic communication, a fax number, an e-mail address, a text message number or any other electronic point of contact at which the member has explicitly consented to receiving messages, in each case registered with the charity; [2008-10-07 22:44:55] <cfp> cool. i'm happy with that. [2008-10-07 22:45:09] <KTC> yes [2008-10-07 22:45:13] <Warofdreams> good. I'm happy. [2008-10-07 22:45:34] <KTC> AndrewRT, can you edit the page plz :) [2008-10-07 22:45:44] <mpeel> I'm also happy with that last version. [2008-10-07 22:46:03] <AndrewRT> Done [2008-10-07 22:46:11] <KTC> right, i think everyone was happy with clause 3. Clause 4? I've added a comment question, and an appeal to the end [2008-10-07 22:46:49] <AndrewRT> what is " written intimation" [2008-10-07 22:47:18] <cfp> is this english "No amendment to any such motion shall be competent." [2008-10-07 22:47:20] <cfp> ? [2008-10-07 22:47:22] <KTC> again, copy and paste, it mean we wrote to them to tell him/her to bugger off [2008-10-07 22:47:43] <AndrewRT> not when they are told we are considering expelling them? [2008-10-07 22:47:59] <KTC> 4.4.a is when we tell them [2008-10-07 22:48:07] <Warofdreams> I'm concerned that if someone appeals an expulsion, we have to call a special general meeting. If there's an AGM within the next few months, it should wait. [2008-10-07 22:48:10] <KTC> 4.5 is after we decided in the meeting, and then write to them [2008-10-07 22:48:12] <AndrewRT> can we say written notice? [2008-10-07 22:48:18] <KTC> sure [2008-10-07 22:49:03] <AndrewRT> would we get a quorate meeting to discuss one person's expulsion? What if we didn't? [2008-10-07 22:49:10] <KTC> 4.4.a is 21 days okay? shorter ? especially if we do it online and don't need to give them time to arrange to get to a physical meeting [2008-10-07 22:49:32] <KTC> AndrewRT, it doesn't have to be just that issue in a GM, you can add other things. [2008-10-07 22:49:41] <KTC> but you will have to discuss that issue [2008-10-07 22:50:05] <Warofdreams> KTC: but if there's an AGM coming soon, it'd be very frustrating [2008-10-07 22:50:26] <AndrewRT> I dont think we shoudl have to call a GM just because the Board has expelled a trouble maker [2008-10-07 22:50:37] <cfp> can't we just say that if they appeal they're a member until the next AGM or EGM/SGM at which point we discuss it [2008-10-07 22:50:42] <AndrewRT> fine appeal to the next scheduled GM or AGM [2008-10-07 22:50:48] <cfp> we don't have to explicitly call a new one [2008-10-07 22:50:55] <Warofdreams> yes [2008-10-07 22:50:55] <cfp> they can't make trouble in between really [2008-10-07 22:51:15] <KTC> you have to call a SGM in accordance with 5, it doesn't say you can't have it just before the say next AGM [2008-10-07 22:52:28] <AndrewRT> I think this proposal would be a pain for the Board - a trouble makers charter [2008-10-07 22:52:32] <Warofdreams> people don't really understand procedures at AGMs at the best of times, let alone if we had an SGM immediately before [2008-10-07 22:52:33] <AndrewRT> sorry [2008-10-07 22:52:45] <KTC> okay [2008-10-07 22:52:55] <KTC> do we want an appeal ? [2008-10-07 22:53:04] <KTC> we can just not have an appeal option [2008-10-07 22:53:13] <AndrewRT> Appeal to the members at the next AGM/GM as per cfp [2008-10-07 22:53:59] <Warofdreams> Tango suggests: "Any such termination can be overturned by an ordinary resolution." [2008-10-07 22:54:26] <Warofdreams> which clearly means at the next AGM/GM [2008-10-07 22:54:35] <cfp> i'm happy with either my version or tango's [2008-10-07 22:54:42] <AndrewRT> "Any such termination can be overturned by an ordinary resolution of members" [2008-10-07 22:54:58] <AndrewRT> (as opposed to of directors) [2008-10-07 22:55:40] <Warofdreams> "If such a motion is placed before an AGM/GM, the person whose membership has been terminate shall have the right to attend said AGM/GM" [2008-10-07 22:57:22] <AndrewRT> Any person whose membership is terminated as in clause 4.4 hereof, shall have the right to appeal within seven days after written notice of membership termination has been given to the member concerned. The termination shall be considered at the next general meeting of members, and may be overturned by an ordinary resolution. The person whose membership has been terminate shall have the... [2008-10-07 22:57:24] <AndrewRT> ...right to attend the said general meeting" [2008-10-07 22:58:04] <mpeel> 7 days of sending said notification, or them receiving it? [2008-10-07 22:58:09] <AndrewRT> Any person whose membership is terminated as in clause 4.4 hereof, shall have the right to appeal within seven days after written notice of membership termination has been given to the member concerned. If an appeal is received the termination shall be considered at the next general meeting of members, and may be overturned by an ordinary resolution. The person whose membership has been... [2008-10-07 22:58:11] <AndrewRT> ...terminate shall have the right to attend and speak at the said general meeting" [2008-10-07 22:58:20] <Warofdreams> we don't know when they receive the notification [2008-10-07 22:58:26] <KTC> .... The member whose membership has been terminated, or the member's representative (who need not be a member of the charity) shall have the right to attend said GM, and have speaking rights on said resolution [2008-10-07 22:58:36] <KTC> Warofdreams, it's 48 hours after you send it [2008-10-07 22:58:36] <mpeel> with recorded delivery you do [2008-10-07 22:58:39] <KTC> it's in the AoA [2008-10-07 22:59:16] <Warofdreams> true - I forgot that. [2008-10-07 22:59:54] <AndrewRT> Any person whose membership is terminated as in clause 4.4 hereof, shall have the right to appeal within seven days of receiving notice of membership termination. If an appeal is received within the time, the termination shall be considered at the next general meeting of members, and may be overturned by an ordinary resolution. The member whose membership has been terminated, or the member's... [2008-10-07 22:59:56] <AndrewRT> ...representative (who need not be a member of the charity) shall have the right to attend said GM, and have speaking rights on the said resolution. [2008-10-07 23:00:33] <KTC> something like that [2008-10-07 23:00:55] <cfp> "considered" is rather vague [2008-10-07 23:01:16] <AndrewRT> considered means it's on the agenda [2008-10-07 23:01:45] <cfp> but to what purpose. to merely state "such an such a person would like to appeal" [2008-10-07 23:02:02] <cfp> or to have a board vote on it [2008-10-07 23:02:37] <cfp> and at which GM can the overturning resolution take place [2008-10-07 23:03:13] <KTC> right, this isn't going anywhere, and everyone is getting tired [2008-10-07 23:03:22] <AndrewRT> lets call it a day [2008-10-07 23:03:23] <KTC> i purpose to adjourned the meeting to another time [2008-10-07 23:03:24] <cfp> i think the simplicity of tango's original suggestion has been lost rather [2008-10-07 23:03:27] <cfp> seconded [2008-10-07 23:03:34] <mpeel> thirded [2008-10-07 23:03:39] <KTC> when/ [2008-10-07 23:03:39] <AndrewRT> same time next week? [2008-10-07 23:03:41] <KTC> * ? [2008-10-07 23:03:45] <mpeel> sooner? [2008-10-07 23:03:51] <KTC> that is the question [2008-10-07 23:03:53] <AndrewRT> i cant [2008-10-07 23:04:01] <AndrewRT> we agreed one meeting per week [2008-10-07 23:04:30] <cfp> i have a formal dinner next tuesday [2008-10-07 23:04:35] <Warofdreams> if it is to be next week, can it be Monday? [2008-10-07 23:04:43] <cfp> so i'd rather have it on monday too [2008-10-07 23:04:48] <cfp> but i'm open to having it sooner. [2008-10-07 23:05:00] <Warofdreams> that would keep us only three days behind schedule [2008-10-07 23:05:15] <AndrewRT> Monday's fine with me [2008-10-07 23:05:21] <KTC> yeah [2008-10-07 23:05:24] <mpeel> monday's fine with me, too. [2008-10-07 23:05:30] <cfp> ok monday 8:30 all agreed? [2008-10-07 23:05:30] <KTC> 8:30pm BST ? [2008-10-07 23:05:34] <Warofdreams> agreed [2008-10-07 23:05:37] <mpeel> should we start earlier? [2008-10-07 23:05:47] <mpeel> say, 7.30pm [2008-10-07 23:06:17] <cfp> if you want. though i'd rather that earlier time didn't become a regular occurrence [2008-10-07 23:06:34] <Warofdreams> I could do 19:30. [2008-10-07 23:06:36] <cfp> as the hour at which i get food isn't at all flexible. [2008-10-07 23:07:02] <KTC> Warofdreams, can you note in the minutes that all members of the board, and the community to be asked to come to a consensus on this before next monday, where we'll be voting on the version exist at the time, rather than drafting by committee [2008-10-07 23:07:22] <Warofdreams> I strongly support that. [2008-10-07 23:07:34] <Warofdreams> and will duly minute it, barring objections [2008-10-07 23:07:43] <mpeel> by "the version" are you meaning of the MoA and AoA, or just this point? [2008-10-07 23:07:59] <KTC> MoA, AoA [2008-10-07 23:08:10] <KTC> which includes the objectives in the MoA [2008-10-07 23:08:14] <mpeel> that's fine with me, then. [2008-10-07 23:08:33] <cfp> i wouldn't expect it to be quick nonetheless... [2008-10-07 23:08:41] <Warofdreams> for the minutes: time is 23:04. [2008-10-07 23:08:44] <KTC> we can ty [2008-10-07 23:08:47] <KTC> *try [2008-10-07 23:08:53] <cfp> yup ok. [2008-10-07 23:09:05] <KTC> Warofdreams, can you send the email to ask the community to edit it etc. as well [2008-10-07 23:09:06] <cfp> well i'll see you all on the mailing list then. [2008-10-07 23:09:10] <cfp> i'm off to the bar. [2008-10-07 23:09:13] <AndrewRT> bye all [2008-10-07 23:09:14] <KTC> have fun [2008-10-07 23:09:17] <KTC> bye
#wikimedia-uk
<Warofdreams> Hi! <Tango42> somebody may with to voice War <Tango42> wish <KTC_> he call talk as long as he's id'd <Warofdreams> Please! <Tango42> The ball next to his name is the wrong colour... <Tango42> that's better :) <KTC> that was "he can..." <Warofdreams> it's very quiet in here - is that because everyone's paying such close attention? :) <mpeel> it's because there's not enough people in here to have a good argument. ;-) <Tango42> I think it's because I'm the only person here <KTC> cause only Tango42 is in the meeting, and he's happy with everything ;) <Tango42> I'll make my presence felt if I need to, don't worry <Tango42> My 2p: I'd keep the Ltd. then you can say "Wiki UK Ltd, Registered Charity No. 123456" and have everything included in a very short space <cfp> we won't be a registered charity for a very long time <Tango42> a few months is not a very long time... <mpeel> hopefully "a very long time" won't be more than a year... <Tango42> You need to register as soon as it becomes clear your annual income is going to go over £5000, which it should do in the first year <Tango42> the registration may take a couple of months, but shouldn't take much longer unless something goes wrong <Tango42> HMRC will give you a number when you register with them, anyway, so you may want to include that during the interim <cfp> we'll probably be able to go straight to CIO <cfp> and who knows when we'll have 5k a year... <Tango42> We have no way to know how long it will be before they get CIOs sorted out, it could be another year yet <Tango42> Assuming we do any decent fundraising at all, we should be able to get £5000. <Tango42> It sounds like WMF will mention us in their next fundraising drive so we should get some of their UK donations * MrWeeble (n=chatzill@87-194-70-98.bethere.co.uk) has joined #wikimedia-uk <Tango42> hi there <KTC> hi <Warofdreams> hi <Tango42> You may want to throw in an "advancement of heritage" object in there somewhere, just to increase our options <mpeel> is "heritage" an in-word at the moment, or something? <Tango42> charities have to be for the advancement of religion, education, heritage or a combination of the above <mpeel> ah <KTC> i think there were more options than that, but yeah <Tango42> Things like digitising old PD newspapers would be heritage <Tango42> I can only remember those 3 <Warofdreams> collating [notable] historical info in wiki form would be heritage <MrWeeble> if we mention the word "wiki" should we not add somewhere what a wiki is, that is a collection of information that is freely and collaboratively editable by it's users. In fact if we phrased it as something like that, it would free us to support collections of information held in other formats (eg OpenStreetMap) <Tango42> What does #8 actually say in English? <KTC> :D <Tango42> It doesn't seem to actually say anything <Tango42> The powers already include the power to do anything appropriate to further the objects, you don't need to repeat that as an object <mpeel> it broadens things a bit: if we want to do something that doesn't quite fit into (1-7), but supports it or has benefits towards the company's property/rights, then we can do it. <KTC> it need to promote the objects of the charity <Tango42> The charity doesn't exist to benefit itself... <Tango42> Exercising property and rights comes under powers and is done to further the objects, it isn't an object in itself <mpeel> that's my current reading of what that item says. <KTC> i know why it's there <KTC> it's just the wording can be confusing <mpeel> concur <Tango42> All it does it say you can do things to further the other objects, which you can already do <Tango42> Either it's redundant (as I think it is) or it's not charitable (if it adds powers you wouldn't have without it) <MrWeeble> should "UK citizens" not be "UK citizens and residents", immigrants should be as much part of the community as those with citizenship <KTC> um yes <Tango42> or just "people with a connection to the UK", no need to be restrictive <Warofdreams> Tango: yes, I like that <cfp> with a connection is a bit vague <cfp> but citizens and residents sounds sensible <Tango42> it's intended to be vague <Tango42> what is the benefit of being precise? <Warofdreams> yes, do we want to discourage non-residents/citizens from taking up membership, should they wish to? <Tango42> I see no reason to <Tango42> One definition will almost certainly be fair use <KTC> i agree <AndrewRT> this particular clause is permissive - wouldn't stop us accepting non-residents or citizens <AndrewRT> hence "Without prejudice to the generality of the objects stated in" <Warofdreams> agreed, just a case of what we wish to emphasise <Tango42> Option 3 seems to be mixing up objects and powers - they are two separate parts of the governing documents. You can add extra powers to the powers section if necessary (I doubt it is, they are very general by default), but you shouldn't have powers in the objects section <Tango42> "may" refers to powers, not objects. Objects are "intends to" and phrases like that. <Tango42> shouldn't that "hereof" be "herein"? <Warofdreams> I believe so <KTC> *shrug* <Tango42> Don't you want a "not exclusively" in there somewhere? <Warofdreams> "... by means which may include all or any of the following:" could cover the "not exclusively" angle <Tango42> Looks like this meeting is going to be even longer than the last one... how did that happen? <KTC> cuz we spend exactly an hour _not_ agreeing to the objectives <Warofdreams> the objectives were nowhere near consensus at the start of the meeting, and we hoped to get them there - but didn't quite <KTC> we were doing so well before that... :( <PrEdAtOr> who won? :DD <mpeel> will objectives get pushed further without someone being nominated to take care of them / have an action on them? <mpeel> actually, I should ask that in the other channel... <Tango42> you should <Tango42> but yes, someone needs to be actioned to take it to the mailing list and report back on the conclusions at the next meeting <mpeel> we've passed the 2 hour mark...again. :( <KTC> :'( * Tango42 thanks the electorate whole-heartedly for sparing hi! <Tango42> him <KTC> lol <KTC> Tango42, i'll make sure i nominate & vote for you in the AGM <KTC> ;) <Tango42> The Articles say "willing to act" - you need my consent to nominate me! <KTC> i'll forge your signuature. shhhh <mpeel> you gave your consent to be nominated easily enough last time... <cfp> it's fresher's week here (where i'm kind of a fresher for the 3rd time at the same place)... there are certainly other things i'd been planning on doing this evening... <Warofdreams> this is the third meeting i've been in today, and it's now the longest :( <Tango42> I can withdraw my consent - I wasn't in full possession of the facts! <KTC> getting freshers flu cfp ? <Tango42> I did not expect the time spent in meetings to reach almost 2% of my life! <mpeel> be glad you haven't entered proper bureaucracy - that would easily reach 102% of your life. <mpeel> (the extra 2% being working out what to do with the dead body in the committee meeting) <Tango42> Be thankful for small mercies, huh? <Warofdreams> Until now, I was just a bureaucrat on Wikipedia itself <Tango42> (that would have to wait until AOB, wouldn't it? ;) ) <mpeel> hmm; good point... 112%, then. <Tango42> ok, you have now spent over 20 minutes trying to define one word... <cfp> yeah yeah... <KTC> it wasn't me... ;) <cfp> we have to get these things right. <Tango42> The blame always falls to the chair in things like this <cfp> else they'll come back and bite us in the arse down the line. <Tango42> I know <Tango42> Still, 20 minutes for one word is not a good rate! <mpeel> if the community discussed these things at length via the mailing list, and came to a conclusion there, then they probably wouldn't have to be discussed as much in these meetings... <KTC> Tango42, i had moved on, i was dragged screaming and kicking back to it :P <Tango42> I know, KTC, you need to stick to your convictions! <Tango42> Hey, mpeel, you can't blame it on us, that's just not fair. You're the board it is therefore all your fault, that goes with the job title. <Tango42> We get to complain if you don't consult us, that doesn't mean we have to respond when you do! <mpeel> lol <mpeel> criticism taken. <cfp> these things were always going to take a while to hammer out. <Tango42> You don't want to call a special meeting every time - just have them appeal to the next meeting whenever that happens to be <cfp> and since it's we that have the inital legal responsiblity, even if the community had come to a decision it'd still be sensible for us to go over it again <Tango42> You'll struggle to get a quorum at a special meeting just to decide on one appeal * PrEdAtOr has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) <Tango42> Of course, you would always need to ratify community decisions <Tango42> You don't want to hold an EGM immeadiately prior to an AGM, that just doubles the paperwork <Tango42> just say "Any such termination can be overturned by an ordinary resolution." the rest of the articles explain the details of how to do that, including how members can force the board to call an EGM <KTC> if it say that, the member whose membership is terminated can't attend the GM <KTC> because he won't be a member then <Tango42> Yeah, I was just about that say that <Tango42> you should include something about them being able to make a statement <mpeel> doesn't 4.4 kick in then? <Tango42> an ordinary resolution is always of members <mpeel> * 4.4b <KTC> mpeel, no, that's at the meeting of the directors <mpeel> ok, thanks for the clarification <Tango42> They need to be able to make a statement at the appeal as well as at the original decision <Tango42> You could just have the chair read of a written statement, rather than inviting them to the meeting * mpeel gets visions of this meeting lasting three hours * Tango42 pours a scotch... * cfp would quite like to call it a night at this point... <Tango42> It should probably be "seven *clear* days" to be consistent with the rest of the articles * Tango42 can call it a night at any time he likes :) <mpeel> as would I, as I think we might be reaching the point where tiredness kicks in and mistakes get made. <Tango42> a very valid point <mpeel> ... we would have to arrange to continue the meeting another evening, though. <Tango42> Simple majority to adjourn, usually (or the chair's agreement) <KTC> let's finish this point first <KTC> then yeah <Tango42> If you don't finish this meeting before the next one, the next one will be horrible * Tango42 finishes his scotch <Tango42> That's better. :) <Tango42> Is that Monday instead of the usual Tuesday meeting, rather than in addition? <mpeel> instead <Tango42> It will be another long meeting, then... <Tango42> I'd start early, if you can <mpeel> hence why I'm suggesting we start early... <Tango42> I know, I'm just agreeing with you <Tango42> KTC is optimistic! <mpeel> it's always good to be optimistic