Minutes 2008-10-21/IRC

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to: navigation, search

#wikimedia-uk-board

[20:30] AndrewRT: hi all
[20:30] mpeel: hi
[20:30] KTC: hi 
[20:30] warofdreams joined the chat room.
[20:30] AndrewRT: hi mickey
[20:31] • KTC poker Warofdreams into id'ing
[20:31] KTC: *poke
[20:31] AndrewRT: can someone voice mickey?
[20:31] cfp: hi
[20:32] Warofdreams was granted voice by ChanServ.
[20:32] AndrewRT: hi tom
[20:32] KTC: right oh
[20:32] Warofdreams: hi - where do I get my password to identify myself?
[20:32] Warofdreams: I've tried the one I was e-mailed, but it's coming up as incorrect
[20:32] KTC: u chose it when you register the nick lol
[20:32] KTC: prob a few weeks ago
[20:33] KTC: right, let's start while you figure that out 
[20:33] AndrewRT:
[20:33] KTC: Minutes of last meeting
[20:34] KTC: everyone happy ? (there's been a copy of minor correction recently on the wiki)
[20:34] KTC: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Board_meetings/2008-10-13
[20:34] mpeel: one point...
[20:34] KTC: *couple
[20:34] mpeel: AoA: Introduction: AT and TH weren't the original suggestors of these names, were they?
[20:34] AndrewRT: No
[20:34] AndrewRT: Well I wasn't anyway
[20:35] Warofdreams: no, they were the ones who suggested them at the meeting
[20:35] Warofdreams: should probably clarify that
[20:35] AndrewRT: Did you change my 3 corrections?
[20:35] cfp: i wasn't either if you're talking about hte company names
[20:35] Warofdreams: yes, thanks for those, Andrew
[20:35] AndrewRT: cheers
[20:36] Warofdreams: apologies for the delay in getting the minutes out
[20:36] Warofdreams: I was not available on Tuesday, and have been ill for the rest of the week
[20:36] Seddon joined the chat room.
[20:36] AndrewRT: no probs - quite a job condensing 5 hours into a few pages!
[20:36] AndrewRT: Hope ur feeling better now
[20:36] KTC: and get well soon if not already
[20:37] Warofdreams: I'm improving, thanks 
[20:38] Warofdreams: any more on the minutes?
[20:38] AndrewRT: Not from me
[20:38] cfp: nope.
[20:38] mpeel: nope
[20:38] KTC: that's that then 
[20:38] Warofdreams: I think changing "AT and TH suggested three possible names for the new organisation"
[20:38] Warofdreams: to "AT and TH brought three possible names for the new organisation to the attention of the meeting"
[20:39] Warofdreams: should clarify the issue
[20:39] mpeel: ok
[20:39] AndrewRT: I'm fine with that
[20:39] KTC: yep 
[20:39] mpeel: might be nice to mention who thought them up originally...
[20:39] AndrewRT: who was that then..... 
[20:39] mpeel: I've been searching through the emails for the last 5 mins trying to find that out, but haven't found the correct emails yet.
[20:40] cfp: not sure. ask the mailing list?
[20:40] AndrewRT: from memory Wiki UK Ltd was Mike's one
[20:40] Warofdreams: I've got no objection, but it wasn't actually mentioned at the meeting
[20:40] AndrewRT: i think
[20:41] KTC: it wasn't mentioned at the meeting, let's not go through the trouble of going though all the emails. if someone do want it mention, feel free to search through it and add it later
[20:41] KTC: let's move on
[20:41] AndrewRT: ok
[20:41] KTC: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Board_meetings/2008-10-21/Agenda
[20:41] KTC: 4.1 Submission to ChapCom
[20:42] KTC: (the order been rearranged, so refresh the page if needed)
[20:42] AndrewRT: Yes - I did that on Wednesday night after the meeting
[20:42] AndrewRT: as agreed
[20:42] AndrewRT: ChapCom have come back to me to say it is being "actively considered"
[20:42] cfp: any eta?
[20:42] AndrewRT: and they will get back to me within the next few days
[20:42] AndrewRT: Andrew Whitworth is listeding here
[20:42] AndrewRT: and will be free until 9pm
[20:43] AndrewRT: could I suggest we invite him to give us an update?
[20:43] Warofdreams: yes, please
[20:43] KTC: feel free,
[20:43] cfp: sounds sensible.
[20:43] AndrewRT: he's wknight8111
[20:43] AndrewRT: could somone voice him?
[20:43] wknight8111 was granted voice by ChanServ.
[20:44] wknight8111: Thanks. Hello all!
[20:44] KTC: u guys do know u can all do it....
[20:44] KTC: hello 
[20:44] mpeel: KTC: it should probably be the chair who gives people voice in these meetings.
[20:44] AndrewRT: Andrew - hi could you give us an update of where ChapCo are up to on this
[20:44] wknight8111: Chapcom has been relatively shorthanded recently, so there is less feedback then I would normally be delivering
[20:44] AndrewRT: ?
[20:44] wknight8111: In general, the committee likes your MoA and AoA very much.
[20:45] AndrewRT: that's good!
[20:45] wknight8111: more formal then we are used to, but I'm sure that's a product of the UK system
[20:45] wknight8111: The complaints that I did hear involved some vagaries in the AoA
[20:45] wknight8111: 1) What is the role and authority of the general assembly?
[20:46] wknight8111: 2) Who do the auditors report to, and who are they appointed by?
[20:47] AndrewRT: anything else?
[20:47] wknight8111: Also, some members of the committee mistakenly thought it was a draft and not the final submission. I have corrected them on that now
[20:47] wknight8111: I think that's it, all that I heard
[20:47] Warofdreams: that sounds promising
[20:47] wknight8111: I hope you should have some kind of reply within the week
[20:47] AndrewRT: Excellent thanks
[20:47] Warofdreams: that sounds even more promising!
[20:47] cfp: shall we try to answer those questions while you're here?
[20:47] KTC: well, it is a draft in the sense that it's not the one submitted to Companies House, as it's subject to changes on what you guys say
[20:48] KTC: and what lawyers might say etc.
[20:48] AndrewRT: My first thoughts are those questions could be explained in comments
[20:48] AndrewRT: given that they are mostly laid down in law
[20:48] cfp: ok. are you happy to action that?
[20:48] AndrewRT: for those tow - yes
[20:48] wknight8111: you can try to answer the questions now, but I have to leave here in about 10 minutes
[20:49] AndrewRT: any others that come back that I'm able to explain
[20:49] AndrewRT: and dont require changes to the text
[20:49] wknight8111: Not that you have to work through me, another email to the chapcom list works just as well
[20:49] KTC: if someone can give a brief answer now, that would be great, otherwise, add it as comment to the wiki page
[20:50] AndrewRT: ok brief answer to (1)
[20:50] AndrewRT: General Assembly - presume means General Meeting
[20:50] AndrewRT: Meeting of all the members
[20:50] AndrewRT: Meets at least annually
[20:50] AndrewRT: Appoints directors
[20:50] AndrewRT: or Board
[20:50] AndrewRT: Agrees changes to teh constitution
[20:51] AndrewRT: Apporve teh annual accou ts
[20:51] AndrewRT: that kind of thing
[20:51] AndrewRT: Board - meetings more regularly, makes day to day decisions
[20:51] AndrewRT: within the authority given to them by the Membership
[20:51] AndrewRT: answer to (2): Auditors are appointed by the Board but report to the General Meeting
[20:52] AndrewRT: Is that the kind of thing you were looking for Andrew?
[20:52] cfp: thanks AndrewRT.
[20:52] Warofdreams: it is usual for the General Meeting to vote on whether to approve the (re-)appointment of the auditors
[20:52] wknight8111: Thanks
[20:53] AndrewRT: thx Mickey that's right
[20:53] wknight8111: I'll take that info back to the chapcom.
[20:53] AndrewRT: although we wont require auditors until we're a lot bigger
[20:54] KTC: right, r we happy to move on ?
[20:54] Warofdreams: yes, thanks to wknight8111
[20:54] KTC: yep, thanks a lot again wknight8111  
[20:54] wknight8111: you're welcome
[20:54] cfp: yup thanks wknight8111.
[20:54] wknight8111: any time
[20:54] KTC: 4.2 Release of voting information
[20:55] KTC: <Warofdreams> geni's just e-mailed them to me
[20:55] Warofdreams: I have been sent the voting information by geni
[20:55] Warofdreams: just before this meeting
[20:55] Warofdreams: so I'll be happy to pass them on to the list after the meeting
[20:55] wknight8111 had voice removed by ChanServ.
[20:55] AndrewRT: Thansk
[20:56] KTC: 4.3 MoA signatures requirement
[20:56] AndrewRT: I was asked to look into that
[20:56] AndrewRT: I've added some information to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/MoA#Signature
[20:56] AndrewRT: I tracked down the requirement to s2 of CoAct 1985
[20:57] AndrewRT: It doesn't specify who could be the witness
[20:57] AndrewRT: so only the principles of general law would apply
[20:57] AndrewRT: i.e. must be able to contract themselves - be over 18, preferably not a relative and not party to the contract
[20:58] mpeel: AndrewRT: so it is only form 10 and 12 that need to be signed by in front of a solicitor, and when we're all together?
[20:58] AndrewRT: and they must be of "sound mind"
[20:58] AndrewRT: No
[20:58] AndrewRT: not quite
[20:58] AndrewRT: MoA & AoA have to be signed by a witness
[20:58] cfp: so does this mean we're ok to just post the MoA around?
[20:58] AndrewRT: MoA & AoA have to be signed by all subscribers and each signature witnessed (not neccessarily by a solicitor)
[20:59] AndrewRT: Form 12 has to be signed by ONE director in front of a solicitor/JP
[20:59] mpeel: MoA and AoA need to be signed at the same time, or can they be done seperately?
[20:59] AndrewRT: they can be done separately - just have one signature plus one witness per page
[20:59] AndrewRT: are we talking about practicalities later in the mtg?
[21:00] KTC: we will be
[21:00] wknight8111 left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:00] KTC: so let's leave that discussion till later
[21:00] KTC: right
[21:00] AndrewRT: unfortunately Form 10 has to be signed by all subscribers on the same page - that will be more tricky
[21:00] mpeel: at the same time?
[21:00] AndrewRT: not at the same time no
[21:01] AndrewRT: Did you want me to mention the ICSA guidance?
[21:01] KTC: yes, 4.4 please 
[21:02] AndrewRT: Again I've put explanations at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/AoA#Notices
[21:02] AndrewRT: essentially it says if you email notices you have to respond to any failure notices
[21:02] AndrewRT: and you have to keep a copy of the sent item
[21:02] AndrewRT: and that's about it
[21:02] Warofdreams: thanks for finding that - it looks straightforward to comply with
[21:03] AndrewRT: nothing too difficult
[21:03] AndrewRT: no probs
[21:03] cfp: seems reasonable. thanks for the research
[21:03] AndrewRT: de nada
[21:04] KTC: right, onto those points we never got to the last 2 meetings! 
[21:04] KTC: 5. External Communication
[21:04] AndrewRT: what's that about then?
[21:04] KTC: *look for email suggseting this be an item*
[21:04] mpeel: that was my addition...
[21:04] mpeel: basically regarding http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2008-September/002759.html
[21:05] mpeel: I got the feeling from that email, and Alison's followup, that they wanted to pass on people who phoned them regarding Wikimedia UK / Wikipedia to the new board
[21:05] mpeel: i.e. that we should have some sort of contact phone number
[21:05] mpeel: I'm unclear as to whether we need to be established as the new Wikimedia UK before we do that, though.
[21:06] cfp: i think we'd be sensible to wait to be official.
[21:06] AndrewRT: woudl it be useful to have someone lined up for it now even if they dont start straightaway?
[21:06] Warofdreams: yes.  but do we have a volunteer?
[21:06] cfp: after that, i'm happy for my phone number to be public, but i think i'm probably not the best person to be dealing with the press
[21:07] Warofdreams: while I have no objection to dealing with the press, I can't answer my phone during the daytime, when I'm at work
[21:07] Warofdreams: and I also don't want to receive calls overnight
[21:07] cfp: i suppose my status as perpetual student means that's not massively a problem.
[21:07] Warofdreams: so I don't want my phone number to be public
[21:07] mpeel: The best method would be to have a dedicated phone for it, which can be turned off when necessary.
[21:07] cfp: though it also means that i don't answer the phone in the morning.
[21:08] mpeel: i.e. a pay-as-you-go sim, for starters.
[21:08] mpeel: so long as it's checked once a day or so, then that should be fine.
[21:08] AndrewRT: David's comment: "I generally let it go to message
[21:08] AndrewRT: when I'm at work."
[21:08] cfp: does anyone actually want to deal with such queries?
[21:09] cfp: otherwise we should either decide who'd be best at it, or just draw lots...
[21:09] Warofdreams: can we set up a phone account to redirect to an online voicemail box?
[21:09] Warofdreams: if we could all pick up the voicemails as and when
[21:09] Warofdreams: then it'd be easier to share the load
[21:10] mpeel: it would be better to have someone dedicated for it - otherwise no-one will do it.
[21:10] cfp: no one wants to phone a voicemail as well.
[21:10] AndrewRT: i think one point of contact would be best - for us and for them
[21:10] AndrewRT: someone who can make sure calls are returned etc
[21:11] KTC: <Seddon> to be proxyied: you could have someone outside the board who deals with the queries
[21:11] KTC: <Seddon> someone who the board trusts
[21:11] KTC: <Seddon> wouldnt be out of the ordinary
[21:11] Warofdreams: is that a volunteer?
[21:12] AndrewRT: i agree thats an option
[21:12] AndrewRT: would David be willing to continue?
[21:12] Warofdreams: my intuition is probably not, but we could ask
[21:13] KTC: we can leave the deciding who will do it part till later
[21:13] mpeel: I would be willing to give it a go, at least for a short while, if no-one else is willing.
[21:13] KTC: especially seeing we agree this will wait until we're official
[21:13] cfp: thanks for volunteering. i'm certainly happy for mpeel to do it.
[21:14] Warofdreams: yes, thanks for volunteering
[21:14] AndrewRT: me too - although you might be busy with membership stuff soon
[21:14] AndrewRT: me too = thanks from me too
[21:14] KTC: right, we'll come back to this closer to the day when we are official
[21:15] mpeel: OK: please let me know when I should set up a contact number.
[21:15] Warofdreams: is that a volunteer?
[21:15] Warofdreams: <Seddon>it could be a possibility
[21:15] KTC: <KTC> right, we'll come back to this closer to the day when we are official
[21:15] KTC: 6. Company Formation with Companies House
[21:15] AndrewRT: Right one for me
[21:15] AndrewRT: I sent an email to the list about this a while ago
[21:16] AndrewRT: This is about the practicalities of how we set the company up
[21:16] AndrewRT: The place we want to get to is:
[21:16] AndrewRT: All five of us Directors
[21:16] AndrewRT: Me Company Secretary
[21:16] AndrewRT: All five of us Members
[21:16] AndrewRT: I can see three ways of getting there
[21:16] AndrewRT: 1)
[21:16] AndrewRT: Most obvious, we have a face to face meeting where we sign the documents
[21:17] AndrewRT: Problem is we need to arrange a time we can all make and travel to a central place
[21:17] AndrewRT: 2)
[21:17] AndrewRT: Do via post
[21:17] AndrewRT: Create a single set of documents which we all individually sign,
[21:17] AndrewRT: post to a central place (ie. me)
[21:17] AndrewRT: And then I complie and submit
[21:17] AndrewRT: 3)
[21:18] AndrewRT: Form a company with only me as the member and me plus two friends as Directors
[21:18] AndrewRT: As soon as the company is formed, admit the other 4 people as members
[21:18] AndrewRT: Appoint the four as Directors and my two friends resign
[21:18] AndrewRT: Those are the three options I see
[21:19] Warofdreams: re: 1; are we all in a position that we could make an early weekday evening in Birmingham?
[21:19] AndrewRT: Each has advantages and disadvantes
[21:19] mpeel: where are we all based?
[21:19] KTC: any particular reason why birmingham?
[21:19] Warofdreams: Sheffield
[21:19] cfp: i'm a little uncomfortable about 3, but i appreciate it would be the most convenient.
[21:19] mpeel: Manchester here.
[21:19] cfp: i'm in oxford
[21:19] Warofdreams: Birmingham is central
[21:19] AndrewRT: I'm in Nottingham - could make Bham evening
[21:19] cfp: birmingham's fine for me.
[21:19] KTC: oxford it the "outliner" to where everyone are at
[21:19] • KTC is currently in Lincoln
[21:20] KTC: everyone else is central england
[21:20] Warofdreams: ...or the north
[21:20] Warofdreams: (but only just)
[21:20] KTC: central-ish
[21:21] KTC: it seems silly to go to birmingham when none of us is actually there
[21:21] cfp: if 2 is actually an option that would certainly be convenient, (for everyone except perhaps AndrewRT...) though it may also be slow
[21:21] cfp: well birmingham is a major rail hub
[21:21] AndrewRT: Nottingham is actually the most central for the five of us!
[21:21] • KTC look at a map again
[21:22] Warofdreams: Nottingham would also be good for me, but isn't it quite awkward from Manchester or Oxford?
[21:22] AndrewRT: although hard to get to from Oxford
[21:22] mpeel: I can get to nottingham in 2 hours by car
[21:22] cfp: nottingham is 3 hours on the train
[21:23] Warofdreams: mpeel: you can also get there in 2 hours by train
[21:23] cfp: (from oxford)
[21:23] Warofdreams: they go via Sheffield
[21:23] cfp: birmingham is 1:10 from oxford.
[21:24] mpeel: Warofdreams: more like 2 1/2 hours, plus travel at either side
[21:24] Warofdreams: KTC: is Lincoln - Birmingham realistic?
[21:24] AndrewRT: Who can drive and who would be taking the train?
[21:25] Warofdreams: I would be on the train
[21:25] KTC: Warofdreams, just looking
[21:25] AndrewRT: from Sheffied WOD
[21:25] cfp: what about derby or chesterfield?
[21:25] cfp: they're the next stops on the main train north.
[21:25] KTC: Duration2:562:522:49
[21:25] KTC: so 3 hours
[21:25] mpeel: lincoln to nottingham by train is an hour
[21:26] KTC: cfp, how long is it to various places around the area we're talking about for u from oxford ?
[21:26] cfp: nottingham is 3 hours as i said.
[21:26] AndrewRT: Derby is quite near to me - I could pick you up from there if u want
[21:26] Warofdreams: cfp: derby might be good; chesterfield would obviously suit me, but that's inconvenient from Nottingham or Oxford
[21:27] AndrewRT: how long wld it take u to get to Derby?
[21:27] KTC: 2 hours
[21:27] KTC: (just looking at thetrainline.com)
[21:27] cfp: 2 hours - 2:30
[21:27] Warofdreams: only 45 mins from Sheffield
[21:28] mpeel: I could conceivably drive to nottingham via derby, if need be (I've done that before)
[21:29] mpeel: with the current roadworks on the M1, that might even be preferable.
[21:29] KTC: how's the sound of derby for people? cfp?
[21:29] cfp: yeah it'd be ok.
[21:30] cfp: i'd obviously prefer birmingham, but derby's maybe a reasonable compromise
[21:30] AndrewRT: Bham or Derby are both fine for me
[21:31] Warofdreams: Bham and Derby are both fine for me; Derby is closer, so slightly preferable
[21:31] mpeel: either is fine for me
[21:31] cfp: wolverhampton is also fairly easy for me
[21:32] cfp: as is stafford (just looking at a rail map)
[21:32] mpeel: so: is the conclusion that we want to meet in person, rather than forming a company by post or proxy?
[21:33] AndrewRT: if we can all do it I think that's the best way
[21:33] AndrewRT: as long as we can find a place, time, date that everyone can do ok
[21:34] KTC: bham is 3 hours plus twice the cost of derby, so derby would be prefable
[21:34] Warofdreams: it would make the process quicker if we can meet in person
[21:34] KTC: *preferable
[21:34] Warofdreams: so I would prefer to
[21:34] KTC: when r we talking about anyway ?
[21:34] Warofdreams: wolverhampton or stafford will be even further than Bham from Lincoln
[21:35] cfp: yeah i suppose so (sorry). i was thinking they were closer to the proper north.
[21:35] cfp: i think option 2 of AndrewRT's options is still probably my weak preference
[21:36] mpeel: option 2 would be cheaper, but slower.
[21:36] mpeel: My preference is #1.
[21:36] cfp: although it might be a little slow, the time it'll take us to find a day we could all make would also cause a reasonable dela
[21:36] cfp: y
[21:36] AndrewRT: can we see whats teh first day & time we coudl all make?
[21:37] mpeel: first, what's the first day that we could conceivably register the company?
[21:37] AndrewRT: then if it's too long look to option 2 & 3?
[21:37] AndrewRT: mpeel: Under option 3, I could have everything in the post by the weekend
[21:37] mpeel: is the only limiting factor ChapCom?
[21:37] AndrewRT: assuming ChapCom give me the ok in a couple of days
[21:38] AndrewRT: mpeel: at the moment yes
[21:38] mpeel: great
[21:38] AndrewRT: mpeel: it then takes about 14 days for Companies House to register the company
[21:39] KTC: so, which option r we going for?
[21:39] KTC: can everyone state their preference (again)?
[21:39] AndrewRT: mpeel: sorry 8-10 working days
[21:39] cfp: 2,1,3
[21:39] mpeel: my preference is #1: meet in person, followed by #2, do it by post.
[21:39] AndrewRT: KTC: My preference is 1) if we can do in a reasonable time, then 3 or 2
[21:39] Warofdreams: I am with mpeel - #1, then #2
[21:40] KTC: right, let's try the meet in person option first then
[21:40] KTC: when r we talking about?
[21:40] cfp: k. are we restricted to weekends?
[21:40] AndrewRT: i can do any evening this week or next; cant do this weekend as I'm in Wales
[21:41] Warofdreams: I can only do some weekends; with a bit of notice, I could do most week nights
[21:41] Warofdreams: *a bit of notice - 8-10 working days 
[21:42] KTC: that's weekend out then 
[21:42] mpeel: Any evening until the 5th november is fine with me.
[21:42] AndrewRT: in on holiday from 2-9 November
[21:42] KTC: what r we doing say monday next week (27th) ?
[21:43] mpeel: 27th is fine with me
[21:43] cfp: possible, but not ideal.
[21:43] AndrewRT: i can do 27th
[21:43] AndrewRT: not quite 8 working days tho!
[21:44] Warofdreams: yes, I should be able to do 27th
[21:44] AndrewRT: excellent
[21:44] KTC: or 30th (thursday) if it's better?
[21:45] AndrewRT: would another day be better for you cfp?
[21:45] Warofdreams: 30th would be difficult for me
[21:45] cfp: the 30th might be marginally better. but i'll survive the 27th.
[21:46] cfp: and we're talking early evening i presume?
[21:46] Warofdreams: that's my understanding
[21:46] KTC: what sort of time can people get to derby on the 27th ?
[21:46] AndrewRT: me: any time
[21:47] Warofdreams: me: 18:22
[21:47] Warofdreams: or probably earlier if I organise leaving work early
[21:48] cfp: the last train i could get back is the 19:57
[21:48] KTC: mpeel ?
[21:48] cfp: the others all take forever and have 3 changes.
[21:48] mpeel: any time is fine with me
[21:49] AndrewRT: sounds horrible!
[21:49] AndrewRT: KTC?
[21:49] cfp: there's a fast one with no changes that gets in at 17:39, so around then would be convenient, but there are later ones with changes which'd be ok too.
[21:49] cfp: how long will this take?
[21:50] cfp: is it literally just signing a few forms = 10 mins?
[21:50] AndrewRT: Yes
[21:50] KTC: i was thinking maybe have a quick face to face meeting / chat while we're there
[21:50] AndrewRT: Although it would be good to hang around and have a drink together if people could
[21:50] cfp: where are we getting our witness from
[21:50] cfp: yeah sure.
[21:50] AndrewRT: Good point!
[21:50] AndrewRT: I could corrall someone to come along
[21:51] mpeel: does it have to be someone we know?
[21:51] AndrewRT: no
[21:51] mpeel: great
[21:51] mpeel: get the local bar tender? 
[21:51] AndrewRT: well possibly
[21:51] AndrewRT: i was thinking my sister in law who lives in Derby
[21:51] KTC: that's also an option 
[21:52] KTC: Warofdreams, feasible to leave work slightly early? or rather not?
[21:52] Warofdreams: shouldn't be a problem
[21:52] Warofdreams: but will need to confirm
[21:53] KTC: okay, let's say um, 18:00 ? (assuming cfp & Warofdreams are okay)
[21:53] Warofdreams: sounds good to me.  I will organise that.
[21:53] AndrewRT: fine for me
[21:53] AndrewRT: meet at derby train station
[21:53] AndrewRT: does anyone know Derby?
[21:53] KTC: i've been there a couple of time
[21:53] Warofdreams: there are several pubs near the station
[21:54] cfp: i haven't been there since i was young.
[21:54] cfp: 18:00 should be fine.
[21:54] AndrewRT: Shall i ask around for a good pub nearby
[21:54] KTC: yeah, that would be good
[21:54] Warofdreams: will check beerintheevening
[21:55] KTC: right, where are we
[21:55] KTC: back to agenda
[21:55] KTC: 7. Timetable Review
[21:55] AndrewRT: ok see evryone there then - I'll print the docs and bring them with me
[21:55] AndrewRT: Timetable - I think we're about 2 weeks behind
[21:56] AndrewRT: 1 week because drafting the Articles took an extra week
[21:56] AndrewRT: 2nd week because ChapCom didn't get back to us in time for this mtg
[21:56] cfp: well lets leave the timetable as it is, it'll give us some drive to push the rest through faster.
[21:56] AndrewRT: ok
[21:57] mpeel: I would prefer to put in dates which are realistic...
[21:57] cfp: (for now at least). obviously when we get to the announcing agm stage we can have a think about when it would be sensible to have it
[21:57] mpeel: rather than saying submission to company's house 4 days ago...
[21:57] cfp: ok, fine
[21:57] AndrewRT: we coud just push it all back 14 days
[21:58] KTC: that's an option
[21:58] mpeel: AndrewRT: that sounds sensible to me, although 11 days would also be realistic.
[21:58] Warofdreams: if we're meeting on 27th, presumably we can submit on 28th
[21:58] AndrewRT: yes
[21:59] Warofdreams: we can begin negotiations with WMF as soon as ChapCom get back to us - 28th seems realistic
[21:59] AndrewRT: shouldnt be a problem
[21:59] Warofdreams: then if we move the next few items back 11 days
[21:59] KTC: can i propose that then? modify the timetable back 11 days for all items not yet achieved
[22:00] AndrewRT: thsi allows no real room for delay
[22:00] Warofdreams: we seem to be using this timeline as a working document
[22:00] Warofdreams: which makes sense to me
[22:00] mpeel: I would support 11 days.
[22:00] Warofdreams: so I think 11 days makes sense
[22:00] AndrewRT: ok im happy with 11 days then
[22:01] AndrewRT: cfp?
[22:01] KTC: right, 8. Membership Rules
[22:01] AndrewRT: whose action is that?
[22:01] Warofdreams: shall I do that?
[22:01] KTC: i'll just do it now
[22:01] AndrewRT: moving it back 11 days i mean?
[22:01] AndrewRT: ok thx
[22:01] cfp: not mine. was discussed on the mailing list briefly.
[22:02] AndrewRT: i proposed item 8
[22:02] cfp: i'm happy with 11 days, if that's what you were asking. was afk one sec.
[22:02] KTC: cfp, that was a question about the 11 days
[22:02] AndrewRT: suggest we sttart moving this on now
[22:02] AndrewRT: so we're ready to act when the company is formed
[22:02] Warofdreams: ok, I've update the timeline
[22:03] AndrewRT: my suggestion was agree the scope of Mem Rules now, discuss on email list and bring back to meeting in 2 weeks?
[22:04] AndrewRT: is that a good way formward?
[22:04] KTC: Warofdreams, 1+11 != 11 
[22:04] cfp: my tentative suggestion is to keep them very simple until after the first agm. don't worry about "supporting" members etc for now.
[22:04] Warofdreams: KTC: yes, see my last edit summary!
[22:04] KTC: there's another one somewhere sec
[22:05] cfp: which means we just have to agree the age limit and any possible reasons we might reject a member (i'm not sure what these could be)
[22:06] AndrewRT: I agree with age limit (if any) and basis for rejecting applications
[22:06] Warofdreams: presumably we ask members to support the objectives of the organisation
[22:06] mpeel: possible reasons to reject: missing or false information, or might bring the charity into disrepute.
[22:06] AndrewRT: i suggest also corporate membership, the application form, membership fees
[22:06] Warofdreams: so if they were to state or otherwise demonstrate that they do not support the objectives, that might be a reason
[22:06] AndrewRT: Warofdreams: Yes that can be done on the application form
[22:07] cfp: i'm uncomfortable with "bringing the charity into disrepute" and "demonstrate that they do not support the objectives" as reasons for rejecting applications, particularly at this stage.
[22:08] Warofdreams: KTC: thanks for addition assistance (you'd think I could manage adding 11... :D)
[22:08] cfp: i accept an agm may possibly want to kick a member out for that kind of reason, but i wouldn't want it set in stone
[22:08] mpeel: basically: ask them to agree to support the objectives and not to bring the charity into disrepute on the application form.
[22:08] Warofdreams: yes, that'd be the way to go
[22:08] mpeel: as AndrewRT said (modified a little).
[22:09] AndrewRT: Could we ask mpeel being memsec to draft some rules and an application form?
[22:09] AndrewRT: post on teh list and get comments?
[22:09] mpeel: would we want to consider their on-wiki activities?
[22:09] KTC: no
[22:09] mpeel: (my feeling being probably not)
[22:09] AndrewRT: mpeel: personally i think yes: if someone was a persistent vandal that would be a legitimate reason to disbar them
[22:09] cfp: ok yeah a tick box seems reasonable, as i presume everyone would automatically tick it. any more than that and i'd be worried.
[22:10] KTC: i thought the general idea was to not associate membership of the company/charity with wikimedia's wiki activities
[22:10] KTC: though obviously we support the goal / have in common
[22:10] Warofdreams: I agree.  We should not consider their on-wiki activities
[22:10] cfp: mpeel: personally i think absolutely no. they're giving us money, they must in some sense support our aims.
[22:11] AndrewRT: cfp: they could just be trying to disrupt us
[22:11] KTC: then it'll under a heading of not supporting the goal of the charity/company
[22:11] cfp: membership should be as open as possible. it's a fine line otherwise between expelling vandals and not letting people be members who aren't considered "sufficiently part of the community"
[22:12] AndrewRT: The decision would be for the Board anyway, with all the rules about appeals etc that were written into the Articvles
[22:12] cfp: we're democratic. they can only actually disrupt us if we've failed to get enough none disruptive members.
[22:12] AndrewRT: but i think teh Board should have to right to refuse membership on those grounds if they saw fit
[22:13] cfp: i think the board should basically have no rights to refuse membership... i'm happy for agms to expell existing members, i'm not comfortable with that power resting with the board.
[22:13] KTC: the board legally have that power
[22:13] KTC: whether they choose to exercise it is a different question
[22:14] mpeel: cfp: what if an expelled member re-applies to join?
[22:15] cfp: i think an (informal?) consultation of the other membership would be appropriate at that point
[22:15] Warofdreams: mpeel: there are a few options - the easiest would be to require the next general meeting to consider the application
[22:15] mpeel: A suggestion: if the board does not feel that it is appropriate to accept a new member (apart from if they don't agree to support the objectives and not be disruptive), then the application should be delayed and considered at the next General Meeting?
[22:15] mpeel: Warofdreams: we think alike
[22:16] cfp: seems reasonable to me.
[22:16] AndrewRT: mpeel: That's written into the Articles anyway
[22:16] AndrewRT: if the Board says no, they can appeal to the next GM
[22:16] mpeel: hmm; true, although that's slightly different.
[22:17] AndrewRT: it requires the person to actively appeal
[22:17] AndrewRT: is there any other difference?
[22:17] Warofdreams: only problem is if the board has information available which cannot be given to the GM due to data protection concerns
[22:17] cfp: right. i think there are two slightly different issues here, firstly how it should work in the long run, and secondly how it should work till the next agm.
[22:17] mpeel: actually: isn't that only for termination, not refusal to join?
[22:17] cfp: there's scope for a lot of discussion over the next few months of what happens in the long run
[22:18] AndrewRT: I'm sorry youre right - its only for terminations
[22:18] cfp: but i'm suggesting we agree an informal "let everyone we can in" agreement at least till the agm
[22:18] AndrewRT: i can think of at least one person I would want to refuse membership to
[22:19] KTC: anway. we've agreed to get a draft, which is then sent round to the list for comments?
[22:19] mpeel: I'm willing to put something together for that, as per AndrewRT's suggested action above.
[22:19] AndrewRT: thx mpeel
[22:19] Warofdreams: that sounds ideal
[22:19] cfp: ok. we'll continue the discussion on list.
[22:20] KTC: 9. Expenses claims forms
[22:20] AndrewRT: i asked for that on teh agenda
[22:20] mpeel: could we address two of the issues with membership first, sorry?
[22:20] AndrewRT: sorry
[22:20] mpeel: namely: corporate membership, do we want to allow it initially?
[22:21] mpeel: and membership, do we want to charge?
[22:21] KTC: i don't see why not (for corporate)
[22:21] AndrewRT: Andrew Cates mentioned SOS Children may want to join
[22:21] AndrewRT: I think yes we should discuss this
[22:21] AndrewRT: Membership - yes I think we should charge
[22:21] AndrewRT: reduced rate for non-workers
[22:21] AndrewRT: students etc
[22:21] AndrewRT: WER seemed to think there was some kind of legal restriction on charging for membership
[22:22] AndrewRT: anyone know why?
[22:22] KTC: it's a point that need to be clarify really
[22:22] cfp: yes i think we should charge, but i don't think we should charge the initial members (prior to the first agm), and i think discussions on rates should be delayed till the first agm
[22:22] KTC: they say you can't, some say you can
[22:23] AndrewRT: Hopefully Alison woudl know why they thought that
[22:23] AndrewRT: she can say on the list
[22:23] Warofdreams: I don't understand what the legal restriction is
[22:23] mpeel: who could/should that be checked with? Company House, or the Charity Commission?
[22:23] Warofdreams: so if we can get that clarified, that'd be good
[22:23] KTC: AndrewRT, i think she attempted to before, but didn't stop Tango and like disagreeing with it
[22:23] KTC: mpeel, CH
[22:23] cfp: i'm not sure it's an issue. you charge informally, and then you kick any member who doesn't pay
[22:23] KTC: i think
[22:24] cfp: there's no need to tie the two legally.
[22:24] mpeel: then why don't we check with them (i.e. phone them) to find out for definite what the legal situation is?
[22:24] Warofdreams: yes, please.
[22:24] AndrewRT: mpeel: You can certainly charge per Companies House (it normally costs money to buy shares!)
[22:24] AndrewRT: plenty of other charities charge for membership
[22:25] Warofdreams: I am aware of many organisations which charge all members
[22:25] AndrewRT: i think if someone thinks theres a good reason we cannot charge its up to them to explain why
[22:25] cfp: yes but they're not voting members i imagine. (they're certainly not guarantor members)
[22:25] AndrewRT: ive seen organsations who charge for guarantor membership
[22:25] cfp: hmm ok.
[22:25] Warofdreams: When I worked at the CMA, we charged voting members who were also guarantor members
[22:26] Warofdreams: nobody ever present any legal issues with this
[22:26] Warofdreams: *presented
[22:26] AndrewRT: i think someone probably got the wrong end of the stick once
[22:26] AndrewRT: and then it kept on being repeated
[22:26] mpeel: OK: the conclusion seems to be that we can charge. Great.
[22:26] AndrewRT: until everyone thought it was the case
[22:26] AndrewRT: ... i suspect
[22:27] cfp: but that's entirely by the by. i don't think we should be charging until after the first agm.
[22:27] AndrewRT: cpf: that's true
[22:27] KTC: cfp, where do u think we're going to get the money to host the AGM ? if we don't charge even a little
[22:28] KTC: (i know why u don't want to charge)
[22:28] cfp: umm well i was rather expecting we'd get a lecture theatre for free
[22:28] AndrewRT: At the very least we should say that people who pay before the AGM should get a full year's subs
[22:29] Warofdreams: yes, unless they pay a heavily discounted rate
[22:29] mpeel: do we want to charge for membership based on a yearly period from a fixed date, or from when they're accepted as members?
[22:29] cfp: we're just here to set up the charity and get things going. a lot of these decisions are best left for the future membership
[22:30] cfp: we obviously couldn't leave the AoA and MoA to the future membership, but rules we certainly can.
[22:30] KTC: right, we all happy ?
[22:31] AndrewRT: discuss this further on the list?
[22:31] cfp: yup ok.
[22:31] mpeel: OK
[22:31] Warofdreams: yes, good plan
[22:31] KTC: 9. Expenses claims forms
[22:31] AndrewRT: Right
[22:31] AndrewRT: Iasked for this on the agenda
[22:32] AndrewRT: cfp could you draw up a claims form as I'm about to spend some money forming the company?
[22:32] cfp: yup ok.
[22:32] mpeel: we'll all be spending some money forming the company next week... (i.e. travel)
[22:32] cfp: keep your receipts all.
[22:33] AndrewRT: thx
[22:33] AndrewRT: are we going to claim for travel costs?
[22:33] cfp: that's the most important thing obviously. the form itself is almost reduntant.
[22:33] KTC: if and when we have some money, it'll be up to the individual AndrewRT
[22:33] AndrewRT: ok
[22:33] AndrewRT: that was all i wanted
[22:34] Warofdreams: good practice is generally considered to be to ask everyone to submit receipts, even if they do not wish to claim
[22:34] Warofdreams: in order that the organisation can work out what its costs would be if everyone did claim
[22:34] mpeel: cfp: bear in mind that for driving, there are no receipts except for petrol prices.
[22:34] AndrewRT: petrol or mileage/
[22:34] AndrewRT: ?
[22:34] Warofdreams: it's good to set a rate for mileage
[22:35] mpeel: receipts for how much fuel you put in exist, of course, but not for how many company miles you do.
[22:35] cfp: i think i have an old expense form from my workplace around somewhere which dealt with mileage
[22:35] cfp: failing that i'm sure there are some online.
[22:35] mpeel: standard rate is 40p/mile up to a maximum distance, after which it is 25p/mile.
[22:35] mpeel: it's set by the government, I believe.
[22:35] Warofdreams: then use an agreed method of calculating the distance
[22:35] Warofdreams: perhaps AA route planner
[22:35] KTC: the company will need to agree how much to pay for per mile, and how to work out the mileage
[22:35] AndrewRT: mpeel: yes that's the tax-free rates
[22:36] AndrewRT: i suggest 40p/mile (although some peopel pay less)
[22:36] AndrewRT: and you declare miles driven when making the claim
[22:36] AndrewRT: (can always be checked on google maps)
[22:36] mpeel: Every so often I try to just claim for petrol - which is 15p/mile in my car.
[22:37] mpeel: how about we establish a form for recording mileage, and leave decisions about price per mile until the next Board is elected?
[22:37] KTC: AndrewRT, it's usually done by claiming from and to and work out the distance via a map/AA etc.
[22:38] AndrewRT: mpeel: wont that be a bit late if people are making claims for next Monday?
[22:38] AndrewRT: KTC: I'm fie with that
[22:38] AndrewRT: _fine_
[22:38] mpeel: AndrewRT: no, we don't need to repay it yet, but we do need to record mileage/expenses.
[22:39] Warofdreams: more than that, we can't repay it yet
[22:39] mpeel: very true, wod.
[22:39] KTC: right, we done on this item?
[22:39] KTC: 10. Review of draft MoA&AoA from informal advice ?
[22:39] cfp: though i guess our failure to repay it may count as a loan on which we then have to repayinterest.
[22:39] AndrewRT: WarofDreams: The company will be able to repay it from 12 december
[22:39] cfp: ok this is my point i guess
[22:40] cfp: optomistic...
[22:40] AndrewRT: when we open the bank account and start receiving donations!
[22:40] Warofdreams: Andrew: provided there is sufficient money in the bank!
[22:40] cfp: you all saw the email from my barrister friend i trust?
[22:40] AndrewRT: KTC: sorry i didnt see u'd nmoved on
[22:40] KTC: it's ok
[22:40] AndrewRT: cfp: yes thanks for this
[22:40] AndrewRT: it's reassuring that teh M&A is generally ok
[22:41] cfp: yeah and a second lawyer friend found no problems
[22:41] AndrewRT: only problematic point was the one about conflicts of interest
[22:41] cfp: i've made the suggested changes here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/MoA&oldid=1237359
[22:41] cfp: and self reverted
[22:44] mpeel: cfp: your suggested change strikes me as a little fuzzy...
[22:44] • KTC is just reading the email
[22:45] cfp: ok. alternatives?
[22:45] cfp: do we agree it's a problem as is?
[22:45] AndrewRT: what circumstance would we remunerate a firm which employed a director?
[22:46] Warofdreams: the suggestion in the e-mail is that a director might work at, say, WHSmith, and we might want to buy some stationery from one of their stores
[22:46] cfp: which seems eminently plausible.
[22:46] mpeel: if someone works from a company we want to do business with, which could range from WHSmith to PwC.
[22:47] cfp: i work for the university of oxford, but we may well be contracting with them for a future wikimania
[22:47] mpeel: I doubt a situation would arise that we couldn't work around, though...
[22:47] mpeel: e.g. rather than buy from WHSmith, we go to Stationary Box.
[22:47] cfp: well it's also incredibly hard to keep track of who works for who.
[22:48] cfp: particularly with consultancy
[22:48] mpeel: true
[22:48] KTC: mpeel, it's easier / better to just say it's fine if there's no possible conflict to be arise from the position held
[22:48] Warofdreams: and sometimes there might not be a choice - we wouldn't want to move Wikimania to Warwick just because cfp works at UOxford
[22:49] AndrewRT: To take cfp's example, would that then be authorised under Clause 5.7?
[22:49] AndrewRT: (am amended)
[22:49] cfp: well that's related to dan's second point
[22:50] AndrewRT: Was he saying that 5.7 is ambigous otherwise?
[22:50] AndrewRT: ambiguous
[22:50] cfp: the "no director may" stipulation is presented as hard and fast, and not as defining a conflict of interest
[22:51] cfp: his change makes clause 5.4 into effectively a definition of a conflict of interest if i understand right
[22:51] KTC: i like the amended version, especially considering i've been in such a situation before
[22:52] cfp: here's the relevant bit of the company's act he was talking about http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006/ukpga_20060046_en_13#pt10-ch2-pb2-l1g175
[22:52] AndrewRT: i think the amendments are good
[22:52] cfp: clause 175.
[22:52] cfp: mpeel didn't like them though?
[22:52] cfp: what did you mean by "a little fuzzy"?
[22:53] mpeel: they just seemed unclear, and verging on a double-negative, at least by my understanding of them.
[22:53] mpeel: how about: "unless this is deemed unlikely to give rise to a conflict of interest"
[22:53] KTC: mpeel, the wording is from the 2006 Act
[22:54] cfp: it is a little weird having it tacked on where it is though
[22:54] cfp: as that clause is a definition
[22:55] cfp: i thought of adding it to 5.4)c) instead
[22:55] cfp: but i'm not sure we want to let partners and directors off the hook so easily
[22:55] mpeel: 5.4c) is something completely different, isn't it?
[22:55] cfp: (and i guess the exception for shareholders was already in 5.5)b) so perhaps our exceptions are no weirder)
[22:56] KTC: 5.4 refer to 5.5(b)
[22:56] cfp: no 5.5)b) is defining the term used in 5.4)c) i think
[22:56] mpeel: ah, ok
[22:56] cfp: goddamn legalese...
[22:57] AndrewRT: I'm happy to agree to both amendments as proposed
[22:57] cfp: any objections?
[22:57] KTC: no obj
[22:58] cfp: mpeel?
[22:58] mpeel: I have no objections any more.
[22:58] cfp: wod?
[22:58] Warofdreams: no objections
[22:58] KTC: right, AOCB ?
[22:58] cfp: k i'll change the page
[22:58] KTC: thanks cfp
[22:59] AndrewRT: cfp: could you put in some explanatory notes there too?
[22:59] KTC: and thank your lawyer friend for us
[22:59] AndrewRT: explaining why we've changed it
[22:59] AndrewRT: ditto thanks to ur friends
[22:59] cfp: ok
[22:59] AndrewRT: thx!
[22:59] mpeel: AndewRT: should you let ChapCom know of the modification?
[23:00] AndrewRT: mpeel: will do
[23:00] mpeel: I have a general question that falls under AOCB: do we know who to approach to start negotiations with WMF for the trademark?
[23:00] KTC: AOCB ?
[23:00] KTC: good question
[23:00] AndrewRT: good q - i dont know!
[23:00] KTC: um
[23:00] Warofdreams: I bet ChapCom can tell us
[23:00] KTC: can you find out AndrewRT from ChapCom ?
[23:01] AndrewRT: will do
[23:01] KTC: right, next meeting
[23:01] AndrewRT: next Monday at 6pm?
[23:01] mpeel: A second, quick question, sorry...
[23:01] KTC: i can't do tuesday, and we're meeting irl on monday
[23:01] AndrewRT:
[23:01] mpeel: when should we start considering the bank account?
[23:02] Warofdreams: KTC: why don't we set the next online meeting on Monday
[23:02] AndrewRT: mpeel: soonish - on agenda for next mtg?
[23:02] mpeel: AndrewRT: OK
[23:02] KTC: Warofdreams, ok
[23:02] KTC: we all happy ?
[23:02] cfp: yup.
[23:02] AndrewRT: yeah!
[23:02] mpeel: yup
[23:02] KTC was promoted to operator by ChanServ.
[23:02] Warofdreams: yes 
[23:03] AndrewRT: only 2.5hrs that time!
[23:03] KTC made this room no longer moderated for normal users.
[23:03] mpeel: We actually made it through the whole agenda?
[23:03] KTC:
[23:03] AndrewRT: yep
[23:03] mpeel: wow...
[23:03] Warofdreams: next meeting will be limited to about 1h30, due to people's trains
[23:03] AndrewRT: is the meeting closed?
[23:03] KTC: yes AndrewRT
[23:03] Warofdreams: for the logs, it's 23:03

#wikimedia-uk

Oct 21 20:35:18 *	Seddon (i=83fb8d75@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-56b84b2bf4e3b468) has joined #wikimedia-uk
Oct 21 20:35:22 <KTC>	hi
Oct 21 20:35:42 <Seddon>	hey ktc, i finally managed to make a meeting :)
Oct 21 20:36:11 <KTC>	:)
Oct 21 20:36:29 <KTC>	it's over there *point to #wikimedia-uk-board *
Oct 21 20:36:58 <cfp>	seddon: what's happening with the voting results
Oct 21 20:37:19 <Warofdreams>	geni's just e-mailed them to me
Oct 21 20:38:07 <cfp>	ahha. good good.
Oct 21 20:41:50 <geniice>	oh year and someone at the meeting should have the vote totals
Oct 21 20:43:01 <Warofdreams>	yes, many thanks
Oct 21 20:53:09 <Seddon>	what are auditors?
Oct 21 20:53:39 <KTC>	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditors
Oct 21 20:53:40 <KTC>	;)
Oct 21 20:53:51 <KTC>	"In financial accounting, an audit is an independent assessment of the fairness by which a company's financial statements are presented by its management. It is performed by competent, independent and objective person or persons, known as auditors or accountants, who then issue an auditor's report on the results of the audit."
Oct 21 20:59:58 *	Washing (n=chatzill@unaffiliated/washing) has left #wikimedia-uk
Oct 21 21:00:20 *	wknight8111 has quit (Client Quit)
Oct 21 21:10:12 <Seddon>	to be proxyied: you could have someone outside the board who deals with the queries
Oct 21 21:10:33 <Seddon>	someone who the board trusts
Oct 21 21:10:40 <Seddon>	wouldnt be out of the ordinary
Oct 21 21:11:33 *	Seddon pings KTC
Oct 21 21:11:36 <Seddon>	^^^
Oct 21 21:11:38 <KTC>	hi
Oct 21 21:12:00 <KTC>	there ;)
Oct 21 21:12:09 <Seddon>	danke schone :)
Oct 21 21:12:19 <KTC>	<Warofdreams> is that a volunteer?
Oct 21 21:12:21 <KTC>	? ;)
Oct 21 21:14:02 <Seddon>	it could be a possibility
Oct 21 21:14:52 seanw Seddon 
Oct 21 21:15:06 <KTC>	Seddon, I'll put ur name forward when the time come :)
Oct 21 21:15:18 <Seddon>	ok sure
Oct 21 22:26:44 <Seddon>	I think that people should pay and then guarantor  membership is on top
Oct 21 22:27:57 <AndrewRT>	Seddon: Should people be able to be guarantor members before being paying members?
Oct 21 22:28:55 <geniice>	nope
Oct 21 22:28:59 <Seddon>	In my opinion, no.
Oct 21 22:29:06 <Seddon>	Its on top of
Oct 21 22:29:10 <Seddon>	not instead of
Oct 21 22:29:20 <Seddon>	before the first agm is one thing
Oct 21 22:29:27 <Seddon>	but after membership is sorted
Oct 21 22:29:33 <AndrewRT>	Thanks - personally I agree
Oct 21 22:29:53 <geniice>	geni is prepared to be a paying memeber but not a guarantor members because there will be issues with haveing an entitiy called "geni" as a guarantor memeber
Oct 21 22:31:04 <Warofdreams>	but we could have an individual of your real life name as a guarantor member, with no way of anyone telling that that person is "geni"
Oct 21 22:31:28 <geniice>	people have met geni
Oct 21 22:32:16 <KTC>	people might or might not know who geni is in real life as a legal person
Oct 21 22:32:44 <KTC>	but the person can still be a guarantor member without associating the account geni with it
Oct 21 22:32:59 <AndrewRT>	I think we need to keep open the option of membership for people who want to remain anonymous
Oct 21 22:33:40 <geniice>	legaly very hard to do on any scale
Oct 21 22:33:49 <Seddon>	AndrewRT i have no problem with supporting members keeping thier annonymity
Oct 21 22:33:52 <geniice>	since the only payment options are postal orders and cash
Oct 21 22:34:27 <KTC>	geniice, can you explain why you think it's hard to do? 
Oct 21 22:34:32 <KTC>	u the person join, pay, etc.
Oct 21 22:34:45 <KTC>	just don't write down anywhere that you the person operate the account geni
Oct 21 22:35:15 <geniice>	KTC people have met geni they know what geni looks like
Oct 21 22:35:38 <geniice>	in most cases it can also be done through a process of ilimination
Oct 21 22:36:16 <KTC>	(point 1) but that's no different if you join or not
Oct 21 22:36:30 <KTC>	some people know what the person controlling geni look like
Oct 21 22:36:42 <KTC>	before and after you might join
Oct 21 22:37:54 <cfp>	i think i'm with geni on this. if we keep supporting and guarantor members completely distinct we still have the flexibility to kick any guarantor member who hasn't paid their supporting member dues in a long time.
Oct 21 22:37:58 <geniice>	on any case cash payments are not that hard to arrage if you accept that wikimeets can funtion as fundraiseingd drives
Oct 21 22:38:38 <Warofdreams>	there shouldn't be a problem with paying in cash, at a General Meeting or other pre-arranged opportunity
Oct 21 22:40:23 <geniice>	remeber always make it easy for people to give you money. Although my uni tended to make it rather hard
Oct 21 22:41:08 <KTC>	oh, i still like how i must be one of the few people who graduated from my uni before paying the graduation fee :D
Oct 21 22:41:14 <KTC>	(yes, completely unrelated :P)
Oct 21 22:41:19 <Warofdreams>	yes; just need to maintain some control to make it unlikely that any will go missing - for example, if someone decided on the spur of the moment to take money at a Wikimeet.  Need to pre-arrange this
Oct 21 22:41:48 <Warofdreams>	to make sure there are forms and somewhere secure to keep payments
Oct 21 22:45:02 <geniice>	KTC actualy I was thinking of rent
Oct 21 22:57:51 <Tango42_away>	Hey, how's it going? (I broke even, if anyone cares)
Oct 21 22:58:02 <KTC>	good good Tango42_away :)
Oct 21 22:58:12 <KTC>	it's fine, the meeting be pretty relax and slow
Oct 21 22:58:17 <KTC>	on the end now
Oct 21 22:58:30 <Tango42_away>	good, good
Oct 21 22:59:14 <Tango42_away>	Odd... because the board channel is moderated I can't change my nick back to normal... why's that?
Oct 21 22:59:38 <KTC>	that's odd, the channel mode isn't set to prevent that (as far as i know)
Oct 21 23:00:02 <KTC>	we'll be done literally in a sec anway