From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search


[20:33] AndrewRT: hi all
[20:33] KTC: hello everyone 
[20:34] mpeel: hi
[20:34] Warofdreams: hi
[20:34] cfp: heya
[20:35] cfp: shall we kick off? sorry was reading an email
[20:35] KTC: let's get going 
[20:35] KTC: anyone that was present have anything about the last meeting minutes
[20:36] KTC: cfp, at least you're reading the email, i'm still trying to download mine *rolleyes*
[20:36] mpeel: I'm happy with the minutes.
[20:36] AndrewRT: me too
[20:36] cfp: nope seem good
[20:36] KTC:
[20:36] KTC: 4.1 - WMF on chapter status! 
[20:37] Warofdreams: hooray!
[20:37] mpeel: wohoo
[20:37] AndrewRT: I haven't had anything official addressed to me
[20:37] AndrewRT: just the message on the email list
[20:37] KTC: let it be actually noted the wikimedia foundation have recognized wiki uk ltd. as uk's chapter
[20:38] KTC: true
[20:38] AndrewRT: Does anyone know what we need to do to sign the Chapters Agreement?
[20:38] mpeel: well, first it needs to be drafted, it seems.
[20:38] mpeel: there's a standard template, which I think is modified for each chapter.
[20:38] cfp: so in response to that message i sent to patti, i got this back from mike goodwin
[20:38] cfp: Hi, Thomas.
[20:38] cfp: The next step for us I think has to be the letter from Alison Wheeler formalizing the disbanding of the old chapter.  At that point, I can figure out what we need to document your new organization's official status. Am I correct in assuming we are going forward working from the template agreement on
[20:38] cfp: --Mike
[20:39] cfp: godwin sorry.
[20:39] cfp: i presume he's not correct in thinking we're signing the standard chapter agreement
[20:39] cfp: i've heard a few modifications proposed previously, though i can't say i remember what the details were
[20:40] AndrewRT: I was only aware of one additional clause
[20:40] mpeel: there was one point about localization - Wikimedia England, etc.
[20:40] AndrewRT: mpeel got there first!
[20:40] KTC: modifications, but we'll still be working from the template?
[20:40] mpeel: methinks it makes sense to start with the template.
[20:41] AndrewRT: KTC: I presume WMF would expect us to use the template
[20:41] mpeel: starting from scratch would be too time consuming; the only other option would be starting from the former WMUK agreement, which I think the template is based on.
[20:41] AndrewRT: Should we action someone to follow this up?
[20:41] AndrewRT: with the WMF I mean
[20:41] mpeel: Tom seems the sensible person to reply to the email to him...
[20:42] cfp: yeah sure.
[20:42] AndrewRT: thanks Tom
[20:42] cfp: but shall we agree what changes we want now
[20:42] AndrewRT: good idea
[20:42] AndrewRT: Has someone got the link to the agreement?
[20:42] cfp:
[20:43] cfp: or at least that was the top google result...
[20:44] Warofdreams: the links to it suggest that's the one
[20:44] AndrewRT: Shall we suggest a revision to #2 to allow us to use Wikimedia England, Wikimedia Wales, Wikimedia Scotland and Wikimedia Northern Ireland
[20:45] mpeel: another possibility is Great Britain.
[20:45] KTC: i'm happy with that suggestion if others are
[20:45] cfp: e.g.:
[20:45] Warofdreams: yes, it's a good idea
[20:46] AndrewRT: I cant remember any other modifications and reading through none spring to mind
[20:46] mpeel: it's something to think about for a while, methinks, and discuss by email.
[20:47] cfp: ==2. Name==
[20:47] cfp: Irrespective of their locally incorporated names, the chapter is authorized to assume and operate under the titles "Wikimedia England", "Wikimedia Scotland", "Wikimedia Wales", "Wikimedia Northern Island", "Wikimedia Britain", "Wikimedia Great Britain", "Wikimedia United Kingdon" and "Wikimedia UK" for all operations as a Wikimedia chapter.
[20:47] cfp: ==3. Geographic limits==
[20:47] cfp: This Chapter is authorized to cover the geographic region of the United Kingdom. The Foundation will not seek to create or authorize the creation of any additional chapter within this geographic region without consulting with the Chapter.
[20:47] AndrewRT: yep that looks good to me!
[20:47] AndrewRT: cfp if you could follow that up that would be great
[20:48] Warofdreams: most of it is uncontroversial, so it shouldn't need too much thinking about
[20:48] cfp: am i saying those are all the changes we want? or are we saying we'll get back to him on further ones?
[20:48] mpeel: I'd say that we get back to him with further ones.
[20:49] AndrewRT: i agree with mpeel for now
[20:49] AndrewRT: see what he says
[20:49] mpeel: Personally, I'd like to compare the template with the original WMUK one to see what the differences are.
[20:49] Warofdreams: ..."operate under the titles "Wikimedia England", "Wikimedia Scotland", "Wikimedia Wales", "Wikimedia Northern Ireland", "Wikimedia Britain", "Wikimedia Great Britain", "Wikimedia United Kingdom" and "Wikimedia UK" for all operations as a Wikimedia chapter.
[20:49] cfp: ok. well i'll put a copy of the chapter agreement as a subpage on meta
[20:49] cfp: and people can edit there.
[20:50] AndrewRT: thanks
[20:50] cfp: sorry what was your change there wod?
[20:50] Warofdreams: just a couple of spelling - Northern Ireland and United Kingdom
[20:50] cfp: oh i guess we want wikimedia GB as well
[20:50] cfp: ahh oops!
[20:50] KTC:
[20:50] AndrewRT: oh yes!
[20:51] AndrewRT: can we move on?
[20:51] Warofdreams: we might perhaps want to consider things like Wicimedia Cymru at some point, but given the current lack of involvement from Welsh-language projects
[20:51] Warofdreams: that needn't be in the agreement
[20:51] cfp: well me might as well cover our bases now.
[20:52] cfp: what would be the scots gaelic equivalent?
[20:52] mib_nb72d7 joined the chat room.
[20:53] Warofdreams: just checking
[20:54] AndrewRT: Looks like Bhicipèidia Alba
[20:54] AndrewRT:
[20:54] AndrewRT:
[20:54] mpeel: is that Wikipedia Scotland, not Wikimedia?
[20:55] AndrewRT: oh sorry thats right
[20:55] cfp:
[20:55] Majorly joined the chat room.
[20:55] KTC: we need to be sensible or we'll end up asking to use 50 different names
[20:56] AndrewRT: indicates its just "Wikimedia"
[20:56] cfp: so Wikimedia Alba
[20:56] Tango42 joined the chat room.
[20:56] cfp: is there an NI / Cornish / anyother equivalent we should worry about?
[20:56] mpeel: why not just append the list of locales with "and translations of the above into other languages"?
[20:57] Warofdreams: good idea
[20:57] AndrewRT: I'm not sure we should ask for too much here
[20:57] AndrewRT: in case it delays it
[20:58] cfp: an open ended "and translations" request might be too much
[20:58] cfp: since there are possibly translation collisions
[20:58] AndrewRT: I', sure teh Foundation will advise us what they will or wont do
[20:59] AndrewRT: can we leave it with cfp to discuss with them and move on
[20:59] cfp: ok. so i'll remove wicimedia cymru and alba for now, add the translations clause, and discuss it with them.
[20:59] AndrewRT: thanks
[20:59] KTC_ joined the chat room.
[20:59] KTC_ was granted voice by ChanServ.
[21:00] Warofdreams: great
[21:00] mpeel: btw, there should be something about Wiki UK Limited in the preamble.
[21:00] cfp: well feel free to insert something...
[21:00] mpeel: will do
[21:00] mib_nb72d7 left the chat room.
[21:01] Seddon joined the chat room.
[21:01] mpeel: I'm tempted to suggest we change "Chapter" to "Wiki UK Limited" thoughout, too.
[21:02] AndrewRT: seriously guys, we dont have a choice
[21:02] AndrewRT: its the Foundation's agreement and we'll do what we're told
[21:02] mpeel: true. But we may as well ask... 
[21:02] KTC_ left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:02] KTC left the chat room. (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[21:02] AndrewRT: we might get away with WM Wales if we're lucky
[21:03] KTC joined the chat room.
[21:03] KTC was granted voice by ChanServ.
[21:03] KTC: testing testing
[21:03] AndrewRT: you back?
[21:04] cfp: who?
[21:04] KTC left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:04] cfp: ktc's given up on us it seems
[21:05] AndrewRT: could someone else chair for now?
[21:05] cfp: sure. shall we move on
[21:05] cfp: 4.2 wikimedia uk v 1
[21:05] AndrewRT: thanks cfp
[21:05] AndrewRT: wmUK v1
[21:05] AndrewRT: should the note put a note to Alison & the rest of WMUK v1 saying thanks for supporting the move to WMUKv2
[21:06] cfp: do we have anything to say about this? alison seems to be doing what's required
[21:06] cfp: yeah good idea.
[21:06] Warofdreams: Andrew: I agree
[21:06] mpeel: I also agree.
[21:06] AndrewRT: also thanks for supporting WMUK generally and hope she joins WMUKv2!
[21:06] AndrewRT: ?
[21:06] cfp: vote of thanks carries...
[21:06] AndrewRT: I'll action that if you want
[21:06] Warofdreams: Angela and David have been very active over the last couple of days, which has certainly sped the discussions along
[21:06] cfp: yeah sure. great thanks andrew.
[21:06] Warofdreams: Andrew: great, will minute that
[21:07] AndrewRT: website is later on the agenda - do we need to do anything else?
[21:07] cfp: don't think so.
[21:07] cfp: 4.3 agm location
[21:07] AndrewRT: I suggested prior to last meeting:
[21:08] AndrewRT: There seems to be a broad consensus that the location should be easily
[21:08] KTC joined the chat room.
[21:08] KTC was granted voice by ChanServ.
[21:08] AndrewRT: accessible by transport and should rotate around several places.
[21:08] AndrewRT: Therefore I suggest:
[21:08] AndrewRT: - Oxford is chosen at the location for the Spring 2010 AGM in the run
[21:08] AndrewRT: up to Wikimania
[21:08] AndrewRT: - Given that London was the location for the Wikimedia v1 formation
[21:08] AndrewRT: meeting, we go elsewhere for now
[21:08] AndrewRT: - AGM 2009 is held in Birmingham, or, if we can't find a suitable
[21:08] AndrewRT: venue, Manchester
[21:08] cfp: i'm happy with that.
[21:08] AndrewRT: last meeting decided to defer as there were only three people there
[21:08] Warofdreams: I agree
[21:08] AndrewRT: but can we agree it now?
[21:09] cfp: mpeel, ktc?
[21:09] mpeel: I'd prefer to get KTC's input before we come to a decision, but what you suggest sounds fine to me.
[21:09] Warofdreams: how long should we give it to find a suitable venue in Birmingham?
[21:09] KTC left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:10] AndrewRT: i'm on the phone to him now
[21:10] AndrewRT: ktc is happy for bham
[21:10] Warofdreams: we do need to get something organised fairly quickly, and we seem to have some leads on finding venues in Birmingham
[21:10] AndrewRT: I've been in touch with somoene wh's following this up
[21:11] AndrewRT: location suggested is Bham uni
[21:11] AndrewRT: close to city centre etc
[21:11] AndrewRT: is teh Board happy to leave it with me to firm up location etc?
[21:11] cfp: well you have to get another train from the railway station if i remember right, but it's accessible enough i'm sure
[21:12] AndrewRT: yeah theres a few different train stations in bham
[21:12] Warofdreams: yes, I wouldn't exactly call it central, but it's very accessible
[21:12] cfp: yeah. go for it. though try not to spend any money we don't have...
[21:12] AndrewRT: im not familiar with it
[21:12] AndrewRT: hopefully it will be free
[21:12] AndrewRT: do i have a small budget if not?
[21:12] mpeel: we should be able to get somewhere for free.
[21:13] KTC_ joined the chat room.
[21:13] KTC_ was granted voice by ChanServ.
[21:13] mpeel: I seem to recall someone offering to book a room at manchester students union for free if we wanted.
[21:13] AndrewRT: yes thats right
[21:13] AndrewRT: ok so I'm ok to investigate free options
[21:13] cfp: i agree with mpeel, we really should be able to get something free, or at least "free providing a few people eat meals and order a few pints"
[21:14] cfp: even if we had the money, we shouldn't be spending it unnecessarily
[21:14] Warofdreams: it should be free; I wouldn't have a problem if it had a tiny reservation fee or somesuch attached (say £10)
[21:14] AndrewRT: ok so I've got a £10 then?
[21:14] cfp: yeah lets say: order of magnitude of the additional travel expenses we'd incur if it was in manchester
[21:15] AndrewRT: I'll see what I can do!
[21:15] AndrewRT: will keep you all informed
[21:15] cfp: thanks andrew. shall we move on?
[21:15] mpeel: won't they want to know a time upfront?
[21:15] mpeel: * time = date
[21:15] AndrewRT: before we book yes
[21:15] AndrewRT: but we can make enquiries before
[21:15] mpeel: ok
[21:15] cfp: ok.
[21:15] AndrewRT: when can we firm up the date?
[21:15] KTC_ left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:16] cfp: as soon as we have the bank account open perhaps?
[21:16] Warofdreams: once the bank account is opened?
[21:16] mpeel: after the bank account as opened and we've started accepting members.
[21:16] Majorly_ joined the chat room.
[21:16] AndrewRT: ok i agree with that
[21:16] Warofdreams: which we can do as soon as the bank account is opened
[21:16] cfp: so about a fortnight at a conservative estimate i guess
[21:16] AndrewRT: ok hopefully next meeting then
[21:17] cfp: right 4.4 election rules
[21:18] cfp: andrew?
[21:18] AndrewRT: I've drafter some here:
[21:18] AndrewRT:
[21:19] AndrewRT: thanks to mpeel for his clarifications
[21:19] AndrewRT: I'd like to propose the Board adopts them
[21:19] AndrewRT: main issues are these:
[21:20] AndrewRT: How many directors?  Most people seem happy with 7
[21:20] AndrewRT: What if candidates get less than 50% approval?
[21:20] Guest21494 joined the chat room.
[21:20] AndrewRT: Suggestions ranged from have a Board of 1 (top candidate) who then calls another AGM
[21:21] AndrewRT: Have a board of 3/5 which then runs the chapter as normal
[21:21] AndrewRT: Or just elect the top 7 regardless
[21:21] Guest21494 left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:21] AndrewRT: mid point is elect top three so that's what I've drafted at the moment
[21:21] mpeel: I'm happy with the way it's drafted atm.
[21:22] Warofdreams: I am also happy with it
[21:22] cfp: ahh it said top 1 last time i looked at that page if i remember right.
[21:22] AndrewRT: do you want to propose that?
[21:22] cfp: i guess i'd weakly prefer that, but if everyone else is happy, since this has been up for a long time i'm happy enough
[21:22] Warofdreams: incidentally, I don't believe I've seen any serious objections to a board of 7 initially - just further down the line
[21:23] cfp: and further down the line the rules can be changed
[21:23] AndrewRT: mpeel could you explain why you wanted more than one?
[21:23] AndrewRT: cfp & WarofDreams: yes the rules can be easily changed in the future
[21:23] mpeel: If I recall correctly, that's the minimum number of directors that the charity can have and still operate.
[21:24] cfp: so why i'd want less is that i don't think the charity should be able to operate in that situation
[21:24] cfp: other than to call a new election. which there's a proviso for i think.
[21:25] Warofdreams: there is
[21:25] mpeel: it depends on what we want: whether we want the charity to continue with the minimum board, or to stall until elections are reheld and at least 3 get the 50%.
[21:25] AndrewRT: i take it you would prefer the first, mpeel?
[21:26] mpeel: I'm inclined towards the first, but would not have an objection to the second.
[21:26] KTC joined the chat room.
[21:26] KTC was granted voice by ChanServ.
[21:26] AndrewRT: cfp would you prefer the second?
[21:27] cfp: yeah.
[21:27] AndrewRT: mpeel>it depends on what we want: whether we want the charity to continue with the minimum board, or to stall until elections are reheld and at least 3 get the 50%.
[21:27] AndrewRT: (for KTC)
[21:27] AndrewRT: warofdreams, ktc any preference?
[21:27] Warofdreams: when we were drafting the Mem/Arts, I understood that in this situation we would go for cfp's option
[21:28] cfp: shall we just have a vote? does someone want to phone ktc?
[21:28] AndrewRT: ktc is back in the room
[21:28] KTC: i'm here
[21:28] mpeel: welcome back ktc
[21:28] Warofdreams: but I can see the benefit of being able to keep things operating in the short-term
[21:28] Warofdreams: I wouldn't be delighted about three people trying to run the chapter for a whole year
[21:28] AndrewRT: i agree with cfp - lets put it to a vote
[21:29] cfp: me: the second option - call a new election
[21:29] AndrewRT: me: the second option too - call a new election
[21:29] mpeel: Warofdreams: note that if only 3 people got over 50% in the election, they would be the board for a whole year.
[21:29] KTC: when is this new election held in relation to the orginial onw ?
[21:30] Warofdreams: mpeel: yes (although they could choose to call a new election)
[21:30] AndrewRT: I don't think there's any time limit in teh Articles
[21:30] AndrewRT: just a restriction that the Board cant do anything else
[21:30] Warofdreams: but three people without any real mandate wouldn't be good
[21:31] mpeel: Tango42: The simplest option is to void the election and have the old board continue in a caretaker capacity (it's not ideal, since chances are at least some of them stood for re-election and failed, but it's very simple)
[21:31] AndrewRT: 20.8 If the number of Directors is less than the number fixed as the quorum, the continuing Directors or Director may act only for the purpose of filling vacancies or of calling a general meeting.
[21:32] cfp: didn't we have something about co-option
[21:32] Warofdreams: the problem with Tango's suggestion, which we discussed before, is that we end up with people on the board who either wanted to leave, or were rejected (possibly with new candidates performing better in the poll)
[21:32] AndrewRT: cfp: "17.4 Where a vacancy has arisen due to the resignation, death or ineligibility of a Director, , the remaining Directors may by a unanimous decision at a meeting of the Directors appoint a person who is willing to act to fill the vacancy"
[21:33] KTC: we are talking about 3 or 4 out of 5 or whatever is election, which fill the quorm but less than what we want right?
[21:33] KTC: fill the board will that number of people, with full rights, but have them call a new election again
[21:34] AndrewRT: no
[21:34] AndrewRT: they either haev full rights and hence can serve a full term if they want
[21:34] AndrewRT: or they only have the rights to call an election
[21:34] AndrewRT: if we go for option (2) and elect the top three, they can serve the full term if they want
[21:35] AndrewRT: if we go for option (1) and elect only the top one, they can only call a new election
[21:35] mpeel: Tango42: There is nothing stopping the membership from imposing a rule that says the board needs to call an election, despite having full rights to run the company until then
[21:35] KTC: um, say what exactly? why can't there be motion (forgotten whatever it's called) that specify in between ?
[21:36] AndrewRT: KTC - I dont understand?
[21:37] mpeel: If a new election is required, does that go all the way back to inviting candidates, etc.?
[21:37] cfp: but look, if the membership is calling an egm the membership can elect some new candidates anyway
[21:37] AndrewRT: mpeel - i would understand yes
[21:38] Warofdreams: KTC - are you suggesting that the membership should enact a by-law restricting the rights of a board in such a situation?
[21:38] Majorly left the chat room. (Connection timed out)
[21:38] mpeel: then why not appoint the top three, but with the requirement that they immediately start the election process again?
[21:38] KTC: i'm saying a by-law which make the new board call a new election say in 1 or 2 month time
[21:38] mpeel: basically as KTC suggested as above.
[21:39] KTC: mpeel, that's what i meant, but those top 3 will have full rights as a company board in the mean time
[21:39] mpeel: those three will be the preferred candidates from the election anyway, so they should have a decent support from the community to operate the company.
[21:40] Warofdreams: that sounds a good proposal to me
[21:40] AndrewRT: yes I agree with that too
[21:40] cfp: the question as i see it is whether having no board at all is better than having a board that the community did not support. i doubt that unsupported board would do much to help the company in the next month anyway out of bitterness
[21:41] Warofdreams: not necessarily - if they did a good job, they would have an improved chance of getting majority support
[21:41] Warofdreams: at the next election
[21:41] mpeel: bear in mind that this is something that can be revised by future boards - it's only particularly relevant to the upcoming election.
[21:41] AndrewRT: if we found ourselves in this situation we would basically be in a hole
[21:41] cfp: are we sure the board couldn't overturn the by law during that one month?
[21:42] mpeel: I really doubt we'll have this problem in this election...
[21:42] AndrewRT: and it would be good to have a constitution that provided a way out!
[21:42] AndrewRT: cfp: yes, unless it was a rule that had been entrenched
[21:42] AndrewRT: cfp: by the membership
[21:43] cfp: right. and at the moment we are the membership, so anything is automatically entrenched?
[21:43] KTC: AndrewRT, then make it a rule that's entrenched by the membership at the first agm
[21:43] AndrewRT: KTC - yes
[21:43] AndrewRT: cfp - no, we are acting as directors, not as members in a general meeting
[21:44] AndrewRT: cfp - it would have to be a resolution to the first AGM entrenching it (something we need to discuss later)
[21:44] cfp: ahha. so shall we adopt provisional rules with one director, and meanwhile mpeel can draft new rules with 3 directors with limited powers to be adopted at the agm
[21:45] AndrewRT: no
[21:45] mpeel: what happens then if 2 directors get 50% approval?
[21:45] AndrewRT: we adopt the rules as directors how we want them
[21:45] AndrewRT: then the AGM entrenches those bits which future Boards are not allowed to change
[21:46] cfp: roight ok.
[21:46] AndrewRT: mpeel: my thoughts were if less than four candidates received >50%, the top three are elected but they have to call an AGM within 2 months
[21:46] cfp: well i'm happy enough with mpeel's suggestion, though i'd still prefer total shutdown
[21:46] cfp: shall we get someone to draft it then decide in the next meeting
[21:47] AndrewRT: i can do that if you want
[21:47] Warofdreams: that makes sense, given your good work on it so far
[21:47] AndrewRT: thanks
[21:47] cfp: thanks andrew.
[21:47] cfp: shall we move on then
[21:48] AndrewRT: yes pls
[21:48] cfp: the website
[21:48] mpeel: is everything else in the election rules ok with everyone, then?
[21:48] cfp: yeah. fine with me.
[21:48] AndrewRT: me too
[21:48] Warofdreams: yes, good with me
[21:48] KTC: i can't see it, but the last time i look * nod*
[21:48] mpeel: fine with me, too.
[21:48] AndrewRT: cheers KTC
[21:48] mpeel: right, website.
[21:49] AndrewRT: you was following this up?
[21:49] AndrewRT: _who_
[21:49] mpeel: me, I think
[21:49] AndrewRT: any progress?
[21:49] mpeel: A WMF Wiki was requested at - but there was some doubts as to whether we want a WMF wiki or to stand alone.
[21:50] mpeel: some concerns were raised in private emails about the percieved connection between WMUK and WMF that having a wiki hosted by WMF might cause.
[21:50] AndrewRT: based on concerns with libel law
[21:50] mpeel: yup
[21:50] cfp: i suspect those fears are a little groundless
[21:50] AndrewRT: me too
[21:50] KTC: having it hosted in the US mean we're _less_ restricted by libel law, no?
[21:51] cfp: we can make our wiki precisely as unofficial or official as the meta pages are at the moment
[21:51] AndrewRT: i think our legal situation is fairly clear anyway
[21:51] AndrewRT: we're a limited company, incorporated in teh UK with a clear constitution, independent membership and a contractual relationship with the WMF
[21:51] mpeel: the wiki would be our public face on the internet, so would probably be fairly official - or at the very least, would appear to be official at first glance.
[21:51] cfp: yeah. i'd suggest we have a disclaimer on the wiki saying that any content is not the responsibility of wiki uk limited unless the page is protected and it's marked with a standard template
[21:52] AndrewRT: well i don;t think we can avoid being responsible for our own website
[21:52] cfp: but there's a difference between appearing official and being official.
[21:52] cfp: any protected page i'd suggest we take responsibility for
[21:52] cfp: everything else not
[21:52] AndrewRT: but i understood the concerns were that someone could sue the chpater about, say, an article on wikipedia
[21:53] KTC: for having a wiki hosted on wmf server?
[21:53] KTC: i think that's fairly unrealistic
[21:53] AndrewRT: yes
[21:53] cfp: yeah. and i don't see how hosting pages on meta is any different
[21:53] AndrewRT: no - not really
[21:53] KTC: or rather, i see the risk at success at such case minimal
[21:53] Warofdreams: Could they sue us? sure.  Would they have a case in the eyes of British law? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't.  Can we be totally confident?
[21:54] mpeel: I was suggesting that we use the unified login - so that anyone with a wikipedia account could log into our site - which would definitely cause a perceived link between WMUK and WMF.
[21:54] AndrewRT: based on the apparent consensus, are we happy to go with WMF hosting then?
[21:55] cfp: but there are plenty of percieved links already. the question is whether any of them are strong enough for liability to flow down.
[21:55] cfp: and i'm not sure having a convenient login mechanism passes that test.
[21:55] cfp: but perhaps i should ask my barrister friend for a second opinion?
[21:55] kibble left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:56] AndrewRT: a legal opinion would be very useful I'm sure!
[21:56] mpeel: Being able to log into both the WMUK site and wikipedia with the same login creates a fairly strong link, imo.
[21:56] AndrewRT: knowing what kind of things to watch out for will no doubt come in handy!
[21:56] mpeel: a legal opinion here would definitely be good
[21:57] cfp: ok well i'll ask my barrister friend and other lawyers around. i'm not entirely sure any of them are strictly qualified in this area, but they're certainly more so than we are.
[21:57] cfp: action me on that.
[21:57] mpeel: as an alternative: I'm willing to donate some webspace (from a reseller account I have with a UK company) to the charity, for use at least until the first AGM.
[21:57] cfp: shall we confirm our decision on this in the next meeting then? (but proceed with wiki creation in the meantime)
[21:57] AndrewRT: cfp: i agree with this
[21:58] Warofdreams: cfp: that would be very good
[21:58] cfp: mpeel: i think that would if anything expose us to more risks, particularly if we're having an open wiki
[21:58] AndrewRT: so, in teh meantime, WMF hosting or mpeel's reseller account?
[21:58] kibble joined the chat room.
[21:58] mpeel: cfp: how do you mean?
[21:58] cfp: it only takes some vandal to come along and write: "[some famous politician] is a [expletive]" and we're being sued
[21:59] AndrewRT: mpeel: what risks do you mean?
[21:59] cfp: i guess it'd be fine as a static site though
[21:59] AndrewRT: surely the risks would be the same, regardless of who hosts it?
[21:59] mpeel: I guess the advantage of a WMF-hosted wiki is that we can use their blacklists.
[22:00] cfp: nah if it's hosted by wmf even if it's our wiki then we have some considerable legal protection.
[22:00] AndrewRT: huh?
[22:01] cfp: if anyone is responsible it'd be them
[22:02] AndrewRT: are you saying WMF hosting the webiste reduces our liability?
[22:02] Warofdreams: could we check this with your barrister friend, too?
[22:02] AndrewRT: surely if it's our webiste, we are responsible for the content, regardless of who hosts it?
[22:02] cfp: yes exactly. i might be wrong, but to be on the safe side i'd suggest any uk hosted page should be either static or a closed wiki
[22:03] mpeel: Seddon: account request would prehaps be an option
[22:03] mpeel: I'd prefer that to a closed wiki
[22:03] mpeel: or perhaps require registration.
[22:03] mpeel: I'd like to see parts of the website which could be edited by anyone - e.g. ideas incubation, news entries, etc.
[22:04] mpeel: Tango42: how about open wiki with flagged revisions?
[22:04] AndrewRT: so lots for cfp to talk to his barrister friend about!
[22:04] cfp: roight.
[22:04] cfp: will do.
[22:04] AndrewRT: are we ok where we are for teh moment?
[22:05] AndrewRT: mpeel you ok to progress this?
[22:05] mpeel: what is the present plan, then?
[22:05] cfp: proceed with wmf
[22:05] mpeel: WMF wiki
[22:05] mpeel: with or without unified login?
[22:05] KTC: wikipedia loves art ?
[22:05] mpeel: without for now, possibly add it later?
[22:05] cfp: i doubt a judge will even understand what unified login is
[22:05] cfp: so you might as well have it...
[22:06] AndrewRT: i agree with cfp, we can always change if advised otherwise
[22:06] mpeel: a lawyer would understand it, and would be able to explain it to the judge.
[22:06] mpeel: "You can create an account on wikipedia, and log into WMUK's site using that account."
[22:06] cfp: so what. you can log into millions of websites using google's auth nowadays
[22:07] cfp: there's no chain of responsibility there
[22:07] AndrewRT: or more problematic: >"You can create an account on WMUK, and log into Wikipedia's site using that account."
[22:07] AndrewRT: cfp - yes thats true
[22:07] mpeel: google's auth is available to all webmasters, unified wiki login isn't.
[22:07] cfp: i think you'd be better off seeing it as
[22:07] cfp: a wikimedia website
[22:07] cfp: that just happens to have some content about wmuk
[22:08] mpeel: ok
[22:08] mpeel: the other part with the website is the domain name.
[22:08] AndrewRT: mpeel - yes we need to tak control of that
[22:08] AndrewRT: who has control at the moment?
[22:09] mpeel: James F, I believe.
[22:09] AndrewRT: is he a WMUKv1 director?
[22:09] mpeel: he was
[22:09] mpeel: I don't think he was still near the end, though.
[22:09] AndrewRT: would he be happy to transfer it to us?
[22:09] mpeel: I can't see why not.
[22:10] mpeel: He'll shortly be legally obliged to...
[22:10] AndrewRT: why?
[22:10] cfp: we own the trademark
[22:10] cfp: or have a license to it, whatever
[22:10] AndrewRT: yes, but trademarks need to be enforced
[22:10] AndrewRT: i doubt we'd want to sue him
[22:10] AndrewRT: given the expense and hassle that would bring
[22:10] mpeel: let's ask first... 
[22:10] AndrewRT: do you think he would voluntarily give it up?
[22:11] cfp: i'm fairly sure there'll be no problems
[22:11] Warofdreams: it seems quite likely - and we'll only find out if we ask
[22:11] cfp: and lets deal with them when/if they arrise
[22:11] Warofdreams: Seddon>he will be fine with the transfer, though he can still hold the site, we just use it
[22:11] AndrewRT: ok - action mpeel again?
[22:11] KTC left the chat room. ("Leaving")
[22:11] Warofdreams: ok mpeel?
[22:11] mpeel: ok
[22:11] Warofdreams: great
[22:11] mpeel: where should it be transferred to?
[22:12] mpeel: it should be registered under the company, I guess.
[22:12] AndrewRT: either Wiki UK Ltd or an individual we trust
[22:12] cfp: i'm happy for mpeel to have it in his own name
[22:12] mpeel: would everyone be ok with me being nominally in charge of it, until the AGM?
[22:13] KTC joined the chat room.
[22:13] KTC was granted voice by ChanServ.
[22:13] AndrewRT: mpeel may be better in practice
[22:13] AndrewRT: I'd agree with that
[22:13] Warofdreams: I've no problem with that, but why not register it under the name of the company?
[22:13] mpeel: KTC: would everyone be ok with me being nominally in charge of it, until the AGM?
[22:13] KTC: in charge of what?
[22:13] mpeel: domain name
[22:13] mpeel:
[22:13] mpeel: It would be registered under the company name, with me as the contact person.
[22:13] KTC: when did jamsF agree to transfer it?
[22:13] mpeel: he hasn't yet.
[22:14] mpeel: I'll be asking him to transfer it shortly...
[22:14] cfp: paying domain fees will perhaps be easier if it's in mpeel's name. though actually thinking about it there's probably no reason why e.g. mpeel couldn't pay despite it being in the company name
[22:14] KTC: i'll be happy for you to be in charge of it, registered under the company name. i just don't think he'll agree to it
[22:14] KTC: cfp, no no no
[22:14] KTC: under the company name
[22:15] cfp: yeah i changed my mind half way through that sentence. under the company name would be fine.
[22:15] • KTC would also point out transferring uk domain cost £££ incompatible encoding
[22:15] AndrewRT: any idea how much?
[22:15] KTC: sec
[22:15] mpeel: transfer fee is "usually £11.75".
[22:16] Warofdreams: that's not a problematic amount
[22:16] KTC: there u go then 
[22:16] KTC: it was reduced relatively recently
[22:16] KTC: it's now actually a reasonable amount
[22:16] mpeel: I'll investigate, and will email around about it once I've got more info.
[22:16] cfp: k
[22:17] AndrewRT: lets see what James says!
[22:17] cfp: wikipedia loves art?
[22:17] mpeel: also exists, also with James F; should that be requested at the same time?
[22:17] cfp: yes.
[22:17] mpeel: ok.
[22:17] mpeel: WLA. 
[22:17] cfp: thanks mpeel
[22:17] AndrewRT: WLA?
[22:17] AndrewRT: I've been progressing a few things with that
[22:18] AndrewRT: Thanks everyone who came to the IRC last week
[22:18] AndrewRT: The main event will be on Sunday 1st Feb
[22:18] AndrewRT: when v&A will be launching the month-long project
[22:18] cfp: is there a draft handout on wiki somewhere? i haven't noticed a link to it
[22:18] AndrewRT: Not yet
[22:19] AndrewRT: one thing on my list to do!
[22:19] AndrewRT: V&A have agreed to offer a prize
[22:19] cfp: ok. i'll help once the page is up
[22:19] cfp: ahh that's great
[22:19] AndrewRT: "we can offer two pairs of exhibition tickets to our
[22:19] AndrewRT: upcoming exhibitions"
[22:19] mpeel: great
[22:19] AndrewRT: they will also provide refreshments on 1st
[22:19] cfp: none of the (two) camera shops i contacted have replied i'm afraid
[22:19] KTC: great
[22:20] AndrewRT: thanks for following that up
[22:20] AndrewRT: they want me to draft a handout and get it printed
[22:20] cfp: is there anyone else obvious i should try? i tried jessops and pixmania.
[22:20] AndrewRT: which I will arraneg some time
[22:20] cfp: as i said before, i can handle printing.
[22:21] AndrewRT: yes please - can I talk to you offline about that
[22:21] mpeel: london camera exchange
[22:21] AndrewRT: so unless the Board has any questions, nothing for the Board to agree as such
[22:21] AndrewRT: just please invite all your friends!
[22:21] mpeel: any local camera companies near to the V&A.
[22:22] AndrewRT: hmm dont knw
[22:22] AndrewRT:
[22:23] cfp: k i'll add that to my to do list.
[22:23] AndrewRT: cfp are you happy to continue to look for sponsorship?
[22:24] cfp: yeah i'll fire off a few more emails to firms that look vaguely promising
[22:24] cfp: not too optimistic though.
[22:25] AndrewRT: thanks
[22:25] cfp: np. what's next. newsletter?
[22:25] AndrewRT: shall we move on to newsletter then?
[22:25] AndrewRT: we said we'd aim for mid to late Jan
[22:25] AndrewRT: WarofDreams you ok to start drafting now?
[22:25] Warofdreams: I've set up
[22:25] AndrewRT: excellent!
[22:25] Warofdreams: at the moment it's a blank template 
[22:26] AndrewRT: hehe
[22:26] AndrewRT: approve in teh next fortnight?
[22:26] mpeel: there should be plenty to fit into this edition...
[22:26] mpeel: sending out after next week's meeting would be good.
[22:26] AndrewRT: yes chapter approval, bank account, membership, WLA, AGM
[22:26] mpeel: i.e. circa the 20th.
[22:26] Warofdreams: likely topics: WMF approval, membership (re: bank account developments), new website, AGM, WLA, London meet-up
[22:27] Warofdreams: does anyone want to claim any of these topics?
[22:27] AndrewRT: I'll do AGM if you want
[22:27] AndrewRT: and WLA
[22:27] Warofdreams: excellent.
[22:27] AndrewRT: bank account - cfp?
[22:28] AndrewRT: website - mpeel?
[22:28] mpeel: ok
[22:28] AndrewRT: meet up - do we have a volunteer who went?
[22:28] mpeel: I'll also do the membership section
[22:28] Warofdreams: great
[22:28] mpeel: try User:Ironholds again
[22:28] Warofdreams: I'll get in touch
[22:29] Warofdreams: if nobody who went is interested, we could leave it out
[22:29] AndrewRT: I think LoopZilla may have been there too
[22:29] AndrewRT: I think it's good to have in
[22:29] cfp: sorry was away.
[22:29] AndrewRT: something different for people to get involved in
[22:29] cfp: i'll do the bank account if there's anything to write
[22:30] cfp: and i might have something to say on wikimania
[22:30] Warofdreams: cfp: if there is little to say, we could combine bank account with membership
[22:30] Warofdreams: as that's the big impact it will have on potential members
[22:30] Warofdreams: Wikimania would be great
[22:31] AndrewRT: volunteer for WM approval?
[22:31] AndrewRT: _WMF_
[22:31] Warofdreams: I'll be happy to claim that one
[22:31] Warofdreams: and also write a general summary
[22:31] AndrewRT: LoopZilla's volunteered to do us a bit on the meetup
[22:31] mpeel: KTC's gone very quiet...
[22:32] KTC: i'm lagging but still here
[22:32] KTC: i've not been very good on the newsletter
[22:32] KTC: i'll do whatever i can
[22:32] AndrewRT: could you volunteer to do a section?
[22:32] KTC: pick one for me
[22:32] KTC:
[22:33] Warofdreams: they've actually all been claimed now!
[22:33] Warofdreams: but if you'd like to write about WMF approval, that might be good
[22:33] Warofdreams: as chair
[22:33] KTC: ok
[22:33] AndrewRT: thanks KTC
[22:33] AndrewRT: share the jobs around!
[22:34] Warofdreams: thanks everyone for volunteering so readily!
[22:35] AndrewRT: is that everything on newsletter?
[22:35] mpeel: Treasurer's Report?
[22:35] mpeel: oh - warofdreams, who should be sending the newsletter around by email?
[22:35] mpeel: me or you?
[22:36] cfp: still don't have my laptop back from dell. will do the accounts when it rematerialises
[22:36] AndrewRT: WarofDreams>
[22:36] AndrewRT: ?
[22:36] Warofdreams: mpeel: I don't mind; I'm very happy to do it, if you'd like to pass on any e-mail addresses you've collected so far
[22:36] mpeel: ok, will send them to you.
[22:37] mpeel: where are we now?
[22:37] Warofdreams: great
[22:37] Warofdreams: Treasurer's Report
[22:37] KTC: moving onto sec report ?
[22:38] AndrewRT: nothing from me either
[22:38] KTC: membership
[22:38] AndrewRT: Membership Report?
[22:38] mpeel: one more application received
[22:38] KTC: how many application are we on in total now?
[22:38] AndrewRT: is that 12 now?
[22:38] mpeel: am looking forward to starting to accept them...
[22:38] AndrewRT: including us 5
[22:38] mpeel: yup, 12
[22:39] mpeel: I have 8 applications, but one of those was from andrew
[22:39] mpeel: membership rules - these have been at for a while now
[22:40] AndrewRT: I think they still need a bit of discussion
[22:40] mpeel: discussion would be great.
[22:40] AndrewRT: there are a few bits of the "Guidelines" that haven''t made it into the Rules
[22:40] AndrewRT: plus one new bit about "Friends"
[22:40] AndrewRT: shall we discuss on meta/list with an idea of adopting next meeting?
[22:41] mpeel: my original intention, if I recall correctly, was for these to be put forward for adoption at the AGM.
[22:41] AndrewRT: ok
[22:41] AndrewRT: but we're admitting members before the AGM
[22:42] mpeel: do we want formal rules set down before we start accepting members?
[22:42] AndrewRT: personally I think we should, but I guess we don't need it as such
[22:43] mpeel: random thought: we should persuade people to take membership application forms along to wikimeets and pester those present to join.
[22:43] AndrewRT: what do others think?
[22:43] AndrewRT: mpeel - yes definitely
[22:43] Warofdreams: mpeel: definitely
[22:44] KTC: *nod*
[22:44] AndrewRT: i started some ideas here:
[22:44] Warofdreams: I'm still not convinced of the purpose of a friends membership
[22:44] mpeel: hmm; the random thought got more of a response then the sensible question... (unless I'm misinterpreting)
[22:44] cfp: i don't quite understand what it means to be a friend, beyond being a donator. since they have no vote we may as well just scrap them for simplicity.
[22:44] AndrewRT: once the bank account is open we can start recruiting full speed!
[22:45] AndrewRT: personally I agree with cfp
[22:45] mpeel: they tend to be recurrent donors, with information bonuses.
[22:45] mpeel: it's a hold-over from supporting members, really.
[22:45] mpeel: I suggest we discuss them (and memebrship levels in general) at the AGM.
[22:46] cfp: sure
[22:46] AndrewRT: yes I agree
[22:47] Warofdreams: there have been various views on this on the mailing list, and it could make for a good in-person discussion
[22:48] mpeel: so, further discussion on meta. I'll send around an email to the mailing list to scare up some interest.
[22:48] mpeel: shall we move on?
[22:48] Warofdreams: great.
[22:48] Warofdreams: Timeline
[22:48] AndrewRT: I've made one change to update re the Tax
[22:48] AndrewRT: and also another change re WMF approval
[22:48] Warofdreams: and you've also noted that we've achieved an important target
[22:48] cfp: thanks andrew
[22:48] AndrewRT: cfp - how are we getting on with the bank account?
[22:49] cfp: well it seems we need to sign the chapter agreement
[22:49] cfp: before they'll fax the requisite docs
[22:49] AndrewRT:
[22:49] cfp: so i'll follow up with mike godwin and hopefully we can get things moving.
[22:50] Warofdreams: the timeline looks plausible to me; we should be able to update it at the next meeting, depending on how the chapter agreement signing goes
[22:50] AndrewRT: Is 18th jan feasible for contract signing cfp?
[22:51] AndrewRT: with 23rd Jan for bank account opening?
[22:51] cfp: sure. we may have to have an egm by email confirming the final wording
[22:51] mpeel: signing after 20th jan might be a good idea
[22:51] mpeel: assuming we have our next meeting then
[22:51] cfp: and i'll have to find out how signing works exactly.
[22:51] mpeel: using a pen?
[22:51] AndrewRT: lets hope we can do it electronically
[22:51] cfp: hoho. yeah exactly.
[22:52] cfp: or that we can at least send a signed doc by email/fax
[22:53] cfp: but in the meantime please edit the chapters agreement with any changes you have prontoish
[22:53] AndrewRT: ok and we're going to firm up teh AGM date after bank accont is open
[22:53] AndrewRT: cfp - will do
[22:53] AndrewRT: Could you put as an action for me to draft some papers for the AGM
[22:53] LoopZilla left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[22:54] cfp: one thing tango's just reminded me of:
[22:54] AndrewRT: if we're sending out notices on 24th we need to be ready
[22:54] cfp: at the moment the chapter's agreement says
[22:54] cfp: This Chapter is authorized to cover the geographic region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Foundation will not seek to create or authorize the creation of any additional chapter within this geographic region without consulting with the Chapter.
[22:54] cfp: there's a suggestion that we may wish to change "consulting with" to "obtaining the consent of"
[22:55] mpeel: sounds good, so long as the WMF are happy with that.
[22:55] AndrewRT: and the chances of WMF agreeing to that?
[22:55] Warofdreams: Andrew - will do
[22:55] KTC: AndrewRT, wait and see
[22:55] AndrewRT: hmm, I suppose there's no harm in asking
[22:56] cfp: cool.
[22:56] cfp: wikimania?
[22:56] cfp: i have a few things to report.
[22:56] AndrewRT: ok
[22:57] cfp: i've actually done a bit of work on it this week so... firstly i've emailed loads of potential colleges on accommodation availability and the conclusion is that july and august might be difficult, which is unfortunate. not everyone's replied yet so my fingers are still crossed. (september would be easy, but people seem averse to it)
[22:58] mpeel: would june be too early?
[22:58] cfp: i've also reestablished contact with the oxford trust, and i've been invited to write a news article for their newsletter which gets distributed to local tech companies
[22:58] cfp: i think so. exams are still going on then.
[22:58] AndrewRT: thanks for this
[22:58] cfp: and i've been invited to some local tech business networking event, at which i'll do my best to pimp wikimania and us
[22:59] cfp: if the rest of you felt like helping, there are still a heck of a lot of local companies we should be contacting...
[22:59] mpeel: apologies - I'm snowed under with work atm.
[22:59] AndrewRT: what kind of things could be done remotely?
[23:00] cfp: emailing/phoning potential sponsors
[23:00] AndrewRT: I have some time off in a couple of weeks which I could us to phone round some people if that would be helpful
[23:00] AndrewRT: _use_
[23:00] cfp: yeah that'd be great. thanks andrew.
[23:00] AndrewRT: can we have a chat then?
[23:00] cfp: yup ok.
[23:00] KTC: i'll see what i can do, but i can't promise anything on this
[23:01] AndrewRT: Could we do an appeal for volunteers?
[23:01] Warofdreams: I thought I might have some spare time this month, but the potential spare time has shifted into next month and might disappear altogether
[23:01] cfp: no worries.
[23:01] cfp: i made an appeal in the last newsletter.
[23:01] AndrewRT: any response?
[23:01] cfp: once bidding opens officially i'll pile on the pressure a bit
[23:01] cfp: no not really.
[23:01] cfp: one person adding their name to the list on the page.
[23:02] AndrewRT: was that me??
[23:02] cfp: and we'll start having weakly meetings
[23:02] cfp: don't think so. maybe it was more than one...
[23:02] Warofdreams: I see that someone has updated the dollar equivalents of all the quoted prices, which must make the bid more attractive
[23:02] AndrewRT: yes that was me too!
[23:02] Warofdreams: fantastic!
[23:03] Warofdreams: AOCB?
[23:03] KTC: Moderation of #wikimedia-uk
[23:04] AndrewRT: is that the email list?
[23:04] AndrewRT: or the IRC?
[23:04] mpeel: no - the chat room
[23:04] KTC: irc i think it meant
[23:04] mpeel: i added this in
[23:04] Warofdreams: incidentally, having this on the agenda reminded me to check the mailing list
[23:04] mpeel: in response to some comments from Majorly in the chat room a few days ago
[23:04] AndrewRT: it's not moderated at the moment
[23:04] Warofdreams: six e-mails had piled up needing moderation, all spam
[23:05] AndrewRT: was he suggesting it should be moderated?
[23:05] mpeel: warofdreams: don't you get email alerts when something needs moderation?
[23:05] cfp: perhaps the tony benn comments could have been moderated?...
[23:05] KTC: someone (majorly?) said something earlier as well about #wikimedia-uk
[23:05] mpeel: no - it's more operators, then moderation.
[23:05] mpeel: so that if someone causes trouble in the chat room, they can be kicked out.
[23:05] Warofdreams: mpeel: no, I think I might change that, though
[23:06] mpeel: there are some ops at the moment, but note of them ever appear.
[23:06] mpeel: Warofdreams: definitely change it, it's better to be notified repeatedly then forget about it.
[23:06] KTC: -ChanServ- 1    VampWillow            +votriRA [modified ? ago]
[23:06] KTC: -ChanServ- 2    nsh                    +votriRA [modified ? ago]
[23:06] KTC: -ChanServ- 3    sannse                +votriRA [modified ? ago]
[23:06] KTC: -ChanServ- 4    DavidGerard            +votriRA [modified ? ago]
[23:06] KTC: -ChanServ- 5    James_F                +votsriRfAF [modified ? ago]
[23:06] KTC: -ChanServ- 6    Angela                +votriRA [modified ? ago]
[23:06] mpeel: that's them
[23:06] AndrewRT: who are they?
[23:06] mpeel: should I request that James_F gives us all op status in there?
[23:07] mpeel: what was WMUK1, pretty much, I think.
<some lines removed for privacy>
[23:07] AndrewRT: I agree that us five should all be op'd
[23:08] AndrewRT: should the others be de-op'd?
[23:08] mpeel: what about other trustworthy people, e.g. Tango42, Majorly and Seddon?
[23:08] AndrewRT: not sure about Tango42
[23:08] AndrewRT:
[23:08] Warofdreams: sannse's been more-or-less inactive for a couple of years, at least
[23:09] AndrewRT: (that was a joke btw)
[23:09] mpeel: perhaps this should be going on in #wikimedia-uk-board-private...
[23:09] cfp: haha. i'm happy for those 3 to be opped too
[23:09] KTC: VampVillow : -NickServ- Last seen  : Jun 17 10:12:09 2007 (1 year, 30 weeks, 1 day, 12:56:57 ago)
[23:09] KTC: nsh : NickServ- Registered : Oct 15 18:23:02 2002 (6 years, 13 weeks, 1 day, 04:46:36 ago)
[23:10] KTC: sorry wrong line
[23:10] KTC: last seen : now
[23:10] mpeel: ooh
[23:10] mpeel: will ask him about it now.
[23:11] KTC: sannse : earlier today
[23:11] KTC: DavidGerard : -NickServ- Last seen  : Oct 23 17:08:36 2008 (11 weeks, 5 days, 06:02:13 ago)
[23:11] KTC: Angela : today
[23:12] mpeel: nsh has been contacted; awaiting a response.
[23:13] Warofdreams: is there any more AOB?
[23:13] mpeel: none from me
[23:13] KTC: nope
[23:13] AndrewRT: yes one item
[23:13] AndrewRT: Tango just sent an email round
[23:14] AndrewRT: "we're again planning a chapters
[23:14] AndrewRT: meeting. The meeting is currently planned for April 3-5, 2009, in
[23:14] AndrewRT: Berlin, Germany."
[23:14] AndrewRT: from ChapCom
[23:14] AndrewRT: "it would be good if UK board members could already mark
[23:14] AndrewRT: the beginning of April in their agenda."
[23:15] cfp: oh that's a good point.
[23:15] cfp: you should have seen the message to the chapters list
[23:15] cfp: we need to choose one of us to go.
[23:15] mpeel: it's after the board elections will take place, so it's more a matter for the next board than us.
[23:15] cfp: i think we have a reasonable chance of being able to persuade the foundation to pay
[23:15] AndrewRT: well, we should just think about it
[23:15] cfp: oh good point mpeel.
[23:15] mpeel: also, it's limited to one or two representatives.
[23:16] mpeel: I'm not sure how much of this we are allowed to discuss openly, btw.
[23:16] cfp: they seemed to only want one really. (if you can afford two, pay for another chapter to send one)
[23:16] AndrewRT: April 3-5 is Friday to Sunday
[23:16] mpeel: the chapter mailing list is a closed one, sadly...
[23:16] cfp: oh fair point...
[23:17] cfp: i don't think we've divulged any great secrets... we should be ok...
[23:17] AndrewRT: ok that was all
[23:18] KTC: that isn't secret, considering we talked about it before we knew...
[23:18] mpeel: we didn't know details like the date, and funding possibiities, then though.
[23:18] KTC: true
[23:18] AndrewRT: i guess we need to bring this up straight after the AGM
[23:19] AndrewRT: can we close now?
[23:19] cfp: next meeting in a fortnight?
[23:19] mpeel: next meeting in a week?
[23:19] AndrewRT: or a week?
[23:19] mpeel: 20th january, 8.30pm?
[23:19] AndrewRT: yeah I suggest a week
[23:19] AndrewRT: got lots to do!
[23:20] Warofdreams: a week might be good; chapter agreement to sign and planning for bank account opening and AGM notification
[23:20] AndrewRT: can I suggest agenda is done ASAP
[23:20] AndrewRT: could I ask agenda is done ASAP
[23:20] Warofdreams: 20th Jan is good with me
[23:20] cfp: fine with me too
[23:20] AndrewRT: as I found it useful to plan the discussions!
[23:20] KTC: let's go for next week
[23:20] Warofdreams: 20:30 as usual, then
[23:20] AndrewRT: hmm next Tuesday I'm in London
[23:20] AndrewRT: during the day
[23:21] AndrewRT: apologies in advance if I'm late!!
[23:21] KTC: that's it then, thanks everyone! 
[23:21] AndrewRT: (again)
[23:21] mpeel: would monday be better?
[23:21] AndrewRT: better for me - was there someone who couldn't make Mondays?
[23:22] Warofdreams: I can do Monday
[23:22] AndrewRT: cfp?
[23:22] cfp: sorry
[23:22] cfp: monday should be fine too
[23:23] AndrewRT: KTC?
[23:23] KTC: sorry, lagging about 15 secs
[23:23] KTC: monday is fine
[23:23] mpeel: monday's also fine with me.
[23:24] AndrewRT: Monday 8:30 it is then
[23:24] Warofdreams: great, see you then
[23:24] AndrewRT: bya then
[23:24] AndrewRT: bye then
[23:24] mpeel: for the logs, it's 23:24.


[20:37] mpeel: meeting has started in #wikimedia-uk-board
[20:37] mpeel: and hi all
[20:37] schiste_ left the chat room. (Remote closed the connection)
[20:40] cfp: no tango?
[20:40] AndrewRT: what a slacker! 
[20:41] KTC: tuesday is poker for him, or was that monday? *shrug*
[20:45] J_Milburn__ left the chat room. (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
[20:55] mib_nb72d7: this is a slow meeting 
[20:56] cfp: sorry...
[20:56] Majorly: we need new ops for this channel
[20:56] Majorly: no one on the ops list is ever here
[20:56] Tango42 joined the chat room.
[20:57] Tango42: have I missed anything interesting?
[20:57] mib_nb72d7: Wikimedia has to remain in english i believe
[20:57] Majorly: no
[20:57] • KTC don't recognize half the names on there 
[20:57] KTC: hi Tango42
[20:57] Tango42: hi
[20:57] AndrewRT: hi Tango
[20:57] Tango42: hi
[20:58] • mpeel contemplates adding to the list of hi's
[20:58] Tango42: hi mpeel (now you'll be rude not to reply!)
[20:58] mpeel: hi Tango.  (why not?)
[20:58] mib_nb72d7: dudes you know wikimedia remains wikimedia in all languages?
[20:58] mib_nb72d7: as part of the wikimedia identity guidelines
[20:59] Majorly: ok great
[20:59] AndrewRT: thanks
[20:59] KTC_ joined the chat room.
[21:00] mib_nb72d7 left the chat room.
[21:00] Warofdreams: that's useful info, although it must look a bit odd in languages without a "k"
[21:01] Seddon joined the chat room.
[21:02] KTC_ left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:02] KTC left the chat room. (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[21:02] Tango42: shows some slight variations, Wikimédia, and some in different scripts that could be direct transliterations or possibly translations, I don't know
[21:03] KTC joined the chat room.
[21:04] KTC left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:06] Seddon:
[21:07] cfp: i presume we can just inherit v1's logo
[21:08] KTC joined the chat room.
[21:08] Tango42: The logo is precisely defined by WMF, so if we made a new one it would look identical to the old one
[21:08] Seddon: yes but there is no reason why we cant operate under wikimedia cymru
[21:09] Seddon: and hell it may not be too bad an idea given that i know we could get funding from the welsh assembly
[21:09] KTC left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:10] cfp: despite the fact none of us are welsh or speak welsh?
[21:10] Seddon: im welsh
[21:10] Seddon: in fact im based in cardiff
[21:10] cfp: ahha.
[21:10] Tango42: "Letterheads and business cards should never be issued without express authorization from the Wikimedia Foundation or the relevant chapters." - We should make sure we get such authorisation.
[21:11] Seddon: whether any of speak welsh isnt a problem, with the amounts of funding available we could end up with the ability to pay someone who speaks welsh
[21:11] Seddon: there is a university in cardiff with a strong welsh speaking group
[21:12] cfp: "or the relevant chapters" ??
[21:12] cfp: aren't we precisely the relevant chapter
[21:12] KTC_ joined the chat room.
[21:12] AndrewRT: Seddon - yes i agree!
[21:13] cfp: and hence can go ahead and issue them?
[21:14] Tango42: oh, yeah, I didn't see that! It also says localised logos shouldn't be used on them, which is why I expected it to be WMF giving permission.
[21:14] Seddon: I know that the welsh wikipedia are very accomodating, some of them i know wanna support/help out with wikimania, i see now reason why they wouldnt wanna help out with a chapter
[21:15] KTC_ left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:16] Tango42: It's Wikimedia *UK* so it includes all the constituent countries. I don't see why we shouldn't use the appropriate names in those countries
[21:16] Majorly_ joined the chat room.
[21:17] Guest21494 joined the chat room.
[21:17] AndrewRT: also we may get a wales branch of the chpater set up one day
[21:17] AndrewRT: and want to use WM Wales for that
[21:17] Tango42: What form would a branch of a chapter take?
[21:17] cfp: at the moment we have wikimedia wales in the list, and wikimedia cymru covered by an "and translations" clause
[21:18] cfp: tango this is the text we're working on:
[21:18] cfp:
[21:18] Seddon: Tango42: A committee for the moment, prehaps with a non voting director as representative, or voting, whatever is decided
[21:21] Guest21494 left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:21] Tango42: I'd like some clarification on what qualifies as commercial
[21:21] Seddon: non voting might be an idea if the board gets too big
[21:22] Seddon: in what way?
[21:22] Seddon: as in "for-profit"
[21:22] Seddon: ?
[21:22] Tango42: I'm also not entirely happy with "The Foundation will not seek to create or authorize the creation of any additional chapter within this geographic region without /consulting/ with the Chapter." Consultation is a rather vague concept.
[21:22] Tango42: The agreement says we need a separate agreement to use the trademarks commercially
[21:23] Seddon: commercially would be "for profit use"
[21:24] Tango42: If we are making money out of it (beyond simple fundraising) does that make it commercial? Or does it have to be for-profit (in which case, there is little need to even mention it, since we're a non-profit organisation)
[21:25] cfp: i'll raise your consulting point in aob, remind me if i forget
[21:25] Tango42: remember, there is a significant notification period required for new elections, the chapter would be dormant for nearly a month, most likely
[21:25] cfp: "obtaining the agreement of" would be better
[21:26] AndrewRT: would WMF agree to this?
[21:26] KTC joined the chat room.
[21:26] Tango42: Either they need our agreement, or just need to notify us. Those are the two plausible interpretations of "consult".
[21:26] Tango42: I would prefer "agreement". If they want to do it without our say so, they can revoke our chapter status (by telling us they don't intend to renew it).
[21:27] mpeel: Tango42: any comment on the 50% approval guideline currently under discussion?
[21:27] Seddon: does tht mean if our chapter wish to set up localised chapters we need to consult with the WMF?
[21:28] Tango42: I don't like the idea of the chapter being dormant for a significant period of time
[21:28] mpeel: (also anyone else; I said Tango42 just because he tends to have an opinion on everything.  )
[21:28] Tango42: I've suggested a few possible ways of handling it on meta
[21:28] • Seddon thinks its all sucks (joking  )
[21:29] AndrewRT: Seddon: not if it was a branch of teh same chapter
[21:30] Seddon: what about a subsiduary company?
[21:30] Tango42: The simplest option is to void the election and have the old board continue in a caretaker capacity (it's not ideal, since chances are at least some of them stood for re-election and failed, but it's very simple)
[21:31] Tango42: (that's not an option I suggested before - I just suggested complicated ones!)
[21:31] Tango42: I guess it depends on how the subsidiary describes itself, if it calls itself a Wikimedia Chapter, then there may be a problem, if it just calls itself a branch of Wikimedia UK, I see no problem.
[21:31] cfp: i'm not happy with that. they've almost certainly been voted not fit to continue
[21:32] Tango42: They would only be continuing for 21 days, or whatever the requirement is. They've probably done all the damage they're going to do by that point anyway.
[21:35] Tango42: There is nothing stopping the membership from imposing a rule that says the board needs to call an election, despite having full rights to run the company until then
[21:35] AndrewRT: and the membership can call an EGM themselves as well, of course
[21:36] Seddon: whats the process for that atm ?
[21:36] Tango42: Of course, although it would be easier to require the board to call an EGM
[21:37] AndrewRT: per the Articles here: 6.5 Note: In addition, under section 303 of the Companies Act 2006, 10% of the membership acting together can require the directors to call a general meeting. The required percentage is 5% where more than 12 months have passed since the last AGM
[21:38] Seddon: for a small chapter that we have im happy with that emergency clause
[21:38] Majorly left the chat room. (Connection timed out)
[21:39] Seddon: i think restricting a board in situation where they dont have full support could be an option?
[21:39] Tango42: 1 month is probably close to the minimum that is practical with all the notification requirements
[21:40] Tango42: (you can call an EGM quicker than an AGM, but I think you still need to give enough time for candidates to inform the company and the company to give notice to membership about them standing)
[21:46] LoopZilla:  Sorry I am en retard!
[21:47] Tango42: Apology accepted, although I'm not sure what you're apologising for...
[21:47] KTC:
[21:49] • LoopZilla is late
[21:49] • Tango42 was too
[21:50] Tango42: I needed a reminder over Google Talk
[21:50] Seddon: from meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 
[21:51] Tango42: libel law? Why would there be anything potentially libellous on a chapter website?
[21:52] Tango42: Indeed, from you. I was very grateful!
[21:52] mpeel: there's two components: first, it links us to WMF.
[21:52] Warofdreams: hopefully not - this is about the need to make clear that we are not responsible for any content on Wikipedia
[21:52] mpeel: second, I'd like to make the wiki editable by everyone, except for some specific pages.
[21:52] mpeel: sorry: it might create a percieved link between us and WMF.
[21:53] Tango42: re website: It's easy enough to put the standard "Any opinions given on this site are those of their author only and not Wikimedia UK or the Wikimedia Foundation unless explicitly stated" disclaimer on the site
[21:54] Tango42: being called "Wikimedia UK" links us pretty closely with the WMF...
[21:55] AndrewRT: well quite!
[21:55] Tango42: That we're hosted on the same servers as Wikipedia doesn't make us in any way responsible for it. Plenty of unrelated sites are hosted on the same servers.
[21:55] Warofdreams: but that's based on a very clear contractual arrangement, carefully phrased to make *very* clear that we're not responsible for it
[21:55] Seddon: we will get sued at some point
[21:55] kibble left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[21:55] Seddon: whether we have a wiki or not
[21:56] Seddon: with the WMF that is
[21:56] Warofdreams: Tango: and my feeling is that even a judge in a British libel case will understand that
[21:57] Tango42: Well said, Seddon - we know from the experiences of other chapters that getting sued for libel on Wikipedia is almost a certainty. We just have to make sure we can convince a judge (and jury) that it's not our problem, and that should be really easy even with all kinds of links between us and WMF
[21:58] Tango42: Some kind of contractual arrangement for the website would be useful - we are entering into an agreement, it may as well be in writing
[21:58] kibble joined the chat room.
[21:59] Tango42: we need to stop worrying about being percieved to be linked to WMF, we are a chapter of the foundation, for god's sake, of course we're linked.
[21:59] AndrewRT: this is something that WMUKv1 were very concerned about
[21:59] Seddon: someone proxy this
[21:59] Tango42: As long as we don't have any actual control over Wikipedia then we can't be held responsible for it. Using unified login does not give us any control.
[21:59] Seddon: account request would prehaps be an option
[22:00] Seddon: i think having an open wiki may be asking for it too much
[22:00] Tango42: WMUKv1 were concerned about a lot of things that made no sense whatsoever, they're research into legal issues was extremely poor (eg. they thought they couldn't charge membership fees despite there being no such rule and nothing even suggesting there way)
[22:01] Tango42: *their
[22:01] Tango42: (I know the difference between there, their and they're, it's just my fingers that don't!)
[22:01] KTC: yeah right... 
[22:02] Tango42: no, really, my fingers type homophones of the words I mean all the time, it's really weird.
[22:02] Tango42: I'm not sure it reduces it, but it certainly doesn't increase it.
[22:03] Tango42: how about open wiki with flagged revisions?
[22:04] mpeel: ooh; that's a nice idea
[22:04] KTC: like it
[22:04] Tango42: It's a highly customisable extension, so I'm not sure quite how we would use it, but it's a definite option
[22:05] Seddon: I like that
[22:05] Seddon: key pages could be protected
[22:06] Seddon: things like AoA etc
[22:06] Tango42: Having unregistered users see only flagged revisions by default should help. The unflagged revisions would still be there, but it would be clear that the company hadn't reviewed them so certainly didn't endorse them.
[22:06] Seddon: agreed
[22:07] Seddon: mpeel: our lawyer can bitch slap them back by explaining flagged revisions
[22:07] Tango42: yes, plenty of important things would need to be protected - governing documents, official notifications about meetings (I know they'll be emailed, but they should be on the site too), the company details (company number, charity numbers, etc.)
[22:07] Seddon: i think youv nailed it on the head there tango 
[22:08] Tango42: unified login is now or never - we don't want to go through the extreme hassle of migration and correcting conflicts, etc.
[22:09] Tango42: indeed, JamesF
[22:09] Seddon: i suggest that content on this wiki is not released under GFDL
[22:09] Seddon: or CC by Sa
[22:09] Seddon: that way accounts can be deleated
[22:09] Seddon: with no hassle with attribution
[22:10] Seddon: Jmaes_F is a sound dude
[22:11] Seddon: he will be fine with the transfer, though he can still hold the site, we just use it
[22:11] mpeel: I'm not sure about the license - we would need GFDL or CC-BY-SA to move content over from meta, I think.
[22:11] mpeel: ... depending on when the content's moved.
[22:11] KTC left the chat room. ("Leaving")
[22:12] Seddon: then we have a little notice on those pages 
[22:12] Seddon: attribution will be a pain though
[22:12] KTC joined the chat room.
[22:13] Tango42: why can't the company have the domain name itself?
[22:14] Tango42: ah, as contact - wasn't Warofdreams in charge of communications?
[22:14] AndrewRT: yes
[22:14] AndrewRT: but roles seem to be quite fluid!
[22:15] Warofdreams: yes, I'd be quite happy as contact, but as mpeel is keen, that's fine with me
[22:15] Tango42: indeed, but you should at least try and follow them!
[22:15] LoopZilla: Perhaps James_F could retain the domain registration, and hosting etc be under the control of the Board?
[22:15] Tango42: When I spoke to James about it an a London meetup he seemed to think it was best if he kept it and we just used it, but I think that's standard WMUKv1 not having the faintest idea about the law
[22:16] LoopZilla: Trademark law?
[22:16] AndrewRT: I can understand why he would say that, but I'd still prefer the domain was owned by teh company
[22:16] Tango42: There is a process we (or WMF) can go through to claim the domain name (without actually going to court, as I understand it) if he causes trouble, but I can't see why he would
[22:16] Tango42: We have a license to use the trademark, so trademark law isn't a problem
[22:17] LoopZilla: So, what law did WMUK 1.0 not understand?
[22:17] Tango42: all law
[22:17] LoopZilla: Strange that...
[22:17] Tango42: Company law, libel law, trademark law, charity law...
[22:17] LoopZilla: I see. Anything else?
[22:18] Tango42: are there any other relevant laws? If so, they probably didn't understand them either.
[22:18] KTC: now now
[22:18] Tango42: I can provide documentary evidence if anyone decides to sue me for defamation
[22:18] LoopZilla: OK. James_F will probably do the right thing.
[22:18] mpeel: For info: I think I should be to open an account specifically for the domain name, and the account can then be passed on to the next board after I remove my personal details e.g. debit card numbers.
[22:19] mpeel: will have to investigate that before saying for definite, though.
[22:19] Tango42: The company will soon have its own account, why can't that one be used?
[22:19] Tango42: oh, and we should get too
[22:19] mpeel: I'm not sure if it requires a debit card or not.
[22:19] LoopZilla: What interests me is why the webiste for WMUK 1.0 is extant. Should have been shutdown, or changed, within the past few days, methinks...
[22:20] Tango42: it's only been a couple of days, give them a chance!
[22:20] Tango42: can we not get a debit card?
[22:20] KTC: um, do we want do?
[22:20] mpeel: the current plan is not to.
[22:21] mpeel: people can use their own debit cards and claim back as needed, really.
[22:21] Tango42: well, yes, that works too, but that doesn't require opening new accounts...
[22:22] mpeel: new account == account with company dealing with domain names
[22:22] mpeel: not bank account
[22:22] KTC: mpeel, let say James say yes, which company were you thinking of transferring the domain into ?
[22:22] mpeel: I've used for years
[22:23] mpeel: so probably them
[22:23] • LoopZilla runs a small service for domains and hosting
[22:23] mpeel: or if it's cheaper, keeping it at whichever domain provider is currently used.
[22:23] Tango42: ah, well yes, that needs to be opened in the company's name, there's no reason that can't have a personal debit card number with it, though. All passwords and things should be written down and locked away somewhere with the company records so we don't lose things if people leave unexpectedly.
[22:25] LoopZilla: is hosted by Pair Networks
[22:25] mpeel: hmm; not a well known company.
[22:26] KTC: hosting company and domain registar is not necessarily the same
[22:26] LoopZilla: I see that is listed as a media contact!
[22:26] mpeel: erm...that's not right
[22:27] mpeel: for one, that email address doesn't work.
[22:27] LoopZilla: Yup: dom reg, hosting, hosting for MX, for A records all that jazz...
[22:27] mpeel: for two, wod should be there.
[22:27] LoopZilla: Check out
[22:27] mpeel: is the domain provider
[22:28] mpeel: we should really get this new website set up asap...
[22:29] LoopZilla: Yeah, Nameroute it is...
[22:29] AndrewRT: LoopZilla were you at the meetup?
[22:29] • LoopZilla was there from 1pm to 4pm only
[22:29] KTC: that's more than the rest of us
[22:29] • LoopZilla had two J2Os
[22:30] LoopZilla: Spoke to the James_F, Theresa etc
[22:30] Tango42: We don't need anything much on meetups, but it would be nice to mention it - just what happened between 1 and 4 sounds good to me
[22:30] AndrewRT: could you write us up a paragraph about it?
[22:30] privatemusings joined the chat room.
[22:30] AndrewRT: for the newsletter?
[22:30] LoopZilla: ok
[22:31] AndrewRT: cheers!!
[22:32] AndrewRT: Last one was here:
[22:32] Warofdreams: It's not essential for your summary to be similar, but one to two paragraphs would be a good length
[22:32] cfp: does someone have a link to another chapter's foundation hosted wiki
[22:32] cfp: i need an example for the lawyers
[22:33] mpeel: there's a load linked to from
[22:33] mpeel: may be a good one
[22:33] mpeel: ... but polish
[22:34] • LoopZilla fires up Emacs
[22:34] cfp: thanks.
[22:34] mpeel: is the only one I can see in english, but that's not actually a chapter yet.
[22:39] Tango42: mpeel: If you haven't received a membership form from me in the next week or so, could you please throw something at me?
[22:40] mpeel: any preference as to the shape, colour, scent or flavour of the brick? 
[22:40] KTC: Tango42, i started typing asking u in fact 
[22:40] Tango42: as long as it doesn't hover above the Earth in exactly the way that bricks shouldn't, I'm happy!
[22:41] Tango42: KTC: I'm predictably forgetful, huh?
[22:42] KTC: hurry up, or i can't force u, ahem, nominate u to stand for the board when we have the agm 
[22:42] Tango42: I did get as far as printing the form off, but never got around to filling it in, I then took it with me at xmas so I could do it, but didn't take my cheque book too, so couldn't do it, and have now lost it... I'll go find a printer tomorrow, I guess...
[22:43] Tango42: Actually, doesn't just the nominator need to be a member? I could be closely involved with everything to do with the chapter without ever being a member... that could be interesting!
[22:44] KTC: um, u need to be a member to be on the board me think
[22:44] Tango42: I could never find anything particularly clear on that point
[22:45] Tango42: Most of the law is written from the point of view of companies limited by shares, so it's all rather confusing trying to translate it
[22:45] AndrewRT: I think all directors have to first be members
[22:46] AndrewRT:
[22:46] Tango42: people like being friendly, it doesn't have to mean anything
[22:46] AndrewRT: "18.1 A Director shall cease to hold office if he or she ... (c) ceases to be a member of the charity;"
[22:47] Tango42: AndrewRT: It says "ceases to be", if I never was one, I couldn't cease to be one! 
[22:47] • KTC have finally finished downloading his emails, 2 and half hour after he started.... *sigh*
[22:47] • KTC slap Tango42
[22:47] • Tango42 turns the other cheek
[22:48] mpeel: I searched for "Thomas Dalton" in my mail box, and turned up 642 emails from him...
[22:49] mpeel: that's only since ~ August!
[22:50] Tango42: I did cut back after "winning" the foundation-l top posters competition several months in a row (and getting moderated), have I increased again?
[22:50] mpeel: not sure - I didn't do a month-by-month breakdown.
[22:51] Tango42: Why were you searching for emails from me, anyway?
[22:51] J_Milburn joined the chat room.
[22:51] Tango42: Is my writing just so enthralling you wanted to read it all again?
[22:51] KTC: i see a lot just from the 8th jan Tango42 
[22:51] mpeel: I was trying to find your comments on the chapters agreement
[22:51] Tango42: how many different threads?
[22:52] mpeel: I gave up in dispair, though.
[22:52] Tango42: That was months ago, you don't stand a chance!
[22:52] mpeel:
[22:52] Tango42: I said we should get permission to use Wikimedia Scotland, etc. and that we should clarify the meaning of "commercial". I've since (ie. this evening) added that we should clarify "consulting".
[22:53] KTC: 518 matches just from wikimediauk-l
[22:53] KTC:
[22:53] LoopZilla left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[22:54] Tango42: cfp: Do you really mean e*G*m, or just board meeting?
[22:54] AndrewRT: Board meeting I presumed
[22:54] Tango42: How many of them are me shouting at Alison?
[22:54] AndrewRT: heh
[22:55] KTC: prob just the 1st 100 or 2 
[22:55] cfp: an extraordinary board meeting!
[22:55] Tango42: I did so on a monthly, then fortnightly, then weekly basis until she finally caved in and ran away!
[22:56] Tango42: although, I think my one email to Delphine may have more effect then my several hundred to the list...
[22:57] mpeel: perhaps not being on the current board was a good thing, giving you time to cool off a bit?
[22:57] Tango42: If they don't agree to getting our consent, the wording should be changed to them just notifying us, since that's all consulting actually means. Let's call a spade a spade.
[22:58] AndrewRT: well, we've consulted you during our work and it's meant a bit more than just telling you what we've agreed!
[22:58] J_Milburn left the chat room. (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[22:58] Tango42: I was cool. I decided that continuously badgering her was the best way to get her to do what needed to be done. It worked, so I'm taking that as strong evidence that I was right. It was all perfectly reasoned.
[22:58] Tango42: sure, but you never had any obligation to do that
[22:58] J_Milburn joined the chat room.
[22:59] Tango42: being obliged to consult someone just means being obliged to notify them (and perhaps pretend to read any reply)
[22:59] AndrewRT: true
[23:01] Seddon: have any of the board members requested foundation wiki access?
[23:02] Tango42: I had an email a while back from an oxford coach company that were interested in giving us discounted coach travel from airports to oxford and back. I didn't get very far with it because I didn't have much information to give them. Would anyone like the contact details (I'm not sure I have time for it right now)?
[23:02] Tango42: and internal-l access
[23:02] cfp: we have both.
[23:02] Tango42: excellent!
[23:02] cfp: cabal-tastic...
[23:03] mpeel: I've already managed to lock myself out of the foundation internal wiki... 
[23:03] cfp: could you forward me your entire email conversation with them and i'll follow up on it
[23:03] Tango42: will do
[23:03] KTC: how did u manage to do that mpeel lol
[23:03] mpeel: I managed to misspell my password when setting it
[23:03] Tango42: apparently the cabal has moved up a level from internal-l since the leaks, so you aren't really in the cabal - sorry!
[23:03] mpeel: and I can't request a new one for 24 hours...
[23:04] cfp: thanks tango
[23:04] cfp: what's above internal-l then?
[23:05] Warofdreams: godking-l? 
[23:05] cfp: haha
[23:05] Tango42: I think it is so secret even its name is forbidden to be spoken!
[23:06] Tango42: Although, I suspect it may be the WMF office water cooler...
[23:09] Tango42: You think I'm trustworthy and we're relying on your judgement to help run the chapter? God, we're in trouble...
[23:09] mpeel: there's always the possibility that I was being sarcastic with "trustworthy"... 
[23:10] Tango42: You should be more careful, people may misunderstand you!
[23:10] AndrewRT: trustworthy enough I think!
[23:13] Seddon: oh, im trustworthy 
[23:14] • Seddon lols at the statement
[23:14] Tango42: Tango just sent a PRIVATE email round
[23:14] Seddon: ?
[23:14] Tango42: that's why it was an email to you and not the list
[23:15] AndrewRT: yes I wasn't going to quote it all
[23:15] Tango42: good, good
[23:15] AndrewRT: i didn't think that but was confidential
[23:16] Tango42: I don't think much of it was, really, but it just came from a restricted source so it's not mine or Michael's place to publicise it.
[23:17] Tango42: I suggest leaving it for the next board, for all you know none of you may be on the board by then! 
[23:17] privatemusings left the chat room. ("ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.5/2008121621]")
[23:17] KTC: i won't be 
[23:17] cfp: you not standing?
[23:18] KTC: not planning to...
[23:18] • Seddon may consider it but unsure yet
[23:18] mpeel: KTC: how come?
[23:18] cfp: this has been amazingly time consuming
[23:18] Tango42: Do we know who is planning to? We've all agreed 7 board members is a good idea, but will we actually get 7 candidates?
[23:19] KTC: well, i can always change my mind if we don't get enough (good) candidates
[23:19] KTC: since i'm already on the board
[23:19] cfp: well if less than 7 get approved we deal with it i guess
[23:20] Seddon: if there is a lack of candidates i will stand
[23:20] KTC: i don't have to nominate in the same time frame
[23:20] J_Milburn is now known as J_Milburn_.
[23:20] mpeel: I'm not sure whether I'll be standing or not, as I'm not sure what my plans will be for the coming academic year.
[23:20] J_Milburn_ is now known as J_Milburn.
[23:21] Tango42: Seddon: It may be best to stand and then step down prior to the vote if you decide you don't want to. You may not know how many are standing until after the deadline for announcing candidacy
[23:21] KTC: mpeel, think there might be better candidates  
[23:21] Seddon: Tango42: Yes that is a point
[23:21] Tango42: At this rate, the board's just going to be me! At least that way I don't have to worry about getting 50% support!
[23:22] Seddon: Can i say i am impressed with the board we have right now 
[23:22] AndrewRT: I'll probably stand again
[23:22] Tango42: Good - the bank account needs at least 2 signatories!
[23:22] Tango42: Indeed, I've been pleasantly surprised. 
[23:22] AndrewRT: hehe thanks!
[23:23] mpeel: I'll probably stand, as I can always retire if logistics require so. But I haven't decided yet.
[23:23] AndrewRT: I'd like to persuade David G to stand
[23:23] AndrewRT: not sure on my chances of succeeding tho
[23:24] Warofdreams: I'm going to decide closer to the time - I think that I might be busier for the bulk of this year, and will weigh how much time I think I can spend on this against how many good candidates express an interest in standing
[23:24] cfp: is a board with both tango and david g going to be safe?
[23:24] cfp: isn't he tainted by alison in your eyes tango?
[23:24] cfp: it could be war...
[23:24] AndrewRT: do they not get on?
[23:24] KTC: oh, that could be fun to watch, from the outside 
[23:25] cfp: dunno. he certainly doesn't get on with alison
[23:25] cfp: what are your thoughts on david then tango?
[23:25] AndrewRT: WarofDreams - would you be happier standing if you could attend only, say, one meeting a month?
[23:26] Seddon: the chapter meet comments isnt privilaged information
[23:26] Seddon: i knew about the dates certainly
[23:26] Warofdreams: AndrewRT: that might be a consideration, but I'd also want to decide whether I could commit to doing a reasonable amount of useful stuff in between meetings
[23:27] cfp: i do have the vague sense of having overcommitted myself
[23:27] cfp: i'd quite like to get out of wikimania, but i'd feel a bit of a bastard not finishing what i started
[23:27] Seddon: having 2 additional board members would help
[23:27] AndrewRT: we could do with trying to reduce the frequency and length of meetings!
[23:28] Seddon: once set up is done itll get quieter
[23:29] KTC: AndrewRT, i think reducing one or both those factors would certainly increase interest, now or in future
[23:30] Warofdreams left the chat room. ("ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.5/2008120122]")
[23:30] AndrewRT: yeah we should probably think about how best to "sell" Board membership to people so we attract the best & most candidates
[23:30] Tango42: I can't see any reason why the board would need to meet weekly, or even fortnightly, once things are up and running.
[23:30] cfp: lets hope so
[23:31] Tango42: there will be occasional things that require extra meetings, of course, but hopefully not too many
[23:31] mpeel: once things are running, I think having dedicated meetings about specific things on irc would work well, along the lines of the WLA meet.
[23:31] AndrewRT: monthly?
[23:31] AndrewRT: limited to 90 minutes?
[23:31] AndrewRT: strong chairing?
[23:32] KTC: hmm
[23:32] • KTC look evilling at AndrewRT  
[23:32] mpeel: if board meetings are restricted to brief discussions, followed by a decision of yay/nay/send back to people for redraft, they'd go a lot quicker.
[23:32] AndrewRT: sorry!
[23:32] mpeel: that's not what we want for now, but might work well in the future.
[23:32] AndrewRT: not meant as criticism
[23:32] Tango42: Monthly is probably a good rule of thumb. Strict limits are a bad idea, but strong chairing is good (no offence KTC, but 2 hours on one sentence of the MoA wasn't your finest moment!).
[23:33] Tango42: (I should clarify that I think you've done a good job apart from that one horrendous meeting)
[23:33] AndrewRT: my observation is we tend to run out of steam
[23:33] KTC: oh it's fine
[23:33] KTC: i know exactly what u 2 mean 
[23:33] AndrewRT: and our productivity falls off after a certain time
[23:33] AndrewRT: people start getting distracted, writing emails reading other things
[23:33] KTC: it's just hard actually balancing it
[23:33] Tango42: I don't recall you really asking for the job in the first place - you've done very well considering it was rather dumped on you.
[23:33] AndrewRT: it's hard enough with a face to face meeting
[23:34] AndrewRT: let alone an IRC meeting
[23:34] AndrewRT: where you cant see the body language
[23:34] AndrewRT: or see what they're up to!
[23:34] KTC: it can certainly be improved upon by making things more formal
[23:34] Tango42: Yeah, I think real life meetings would be much better. I think we agreed on at least 2 a year (AGM+1). 4 a year might be good, if it's possible logistically
[23:35] KTC: but i'm not sure whether that's a good idea
[23:35] AndrewRT: yeah but the time you save on in person meetings you lose with the travel
[23:35] Tango42: Yeah, that's where the chair's job gets difficult - balancing keeping people on topic with not stifling discussion
[23:35] mpeel: real life meetings will depend on the distribution of the board around the country
[23:35] mpeel: if everyone turns out to be in london, then they're no problem.
[23:36] AndrewRT: the initial Board will have two - the formation meeting and the AGM
[23:36] mpeel: if we have people at lands end and john-o-groat's, then we're in trouble.
[23:36] AndrewRT: WMUKv1 was much easier in some ways with nearly everyone in London
[23:36] Tango42: if the real life meetings are long enough, travel time becomes acceptable. That would suggest fewer real life meetings and saving things up until then.
[23:37] AndrewRT: just out of interest, how about Skype conference calls?
[23:37] AndrewRT: or even voice conference calls
[23:37] mpeel: video conferences are messy between more than 2 people
[23:37] Tango42: personally, I think IRC is better - you end up with people talking over each other
[23:37] mpeel: skype conference calls work fairly well.
[23:37] Seddon: skype conference calls can work
[23:37] Tango42: in real life you get clues that someone is about to speak, that doesn't happen on skype
[23:38] Seddon: it can work up to about 12 or more people if its done well
[23:38] AndrewRT: I'm thinking Skype vs IRC tho
[23:38] Tango42: it requires the chair to specifically go to certain people rather than just allowing freeform discussion. It's an option, but I'm not sure it's a good one.
[23:39] privatemusings joined the chat room.
[23:39] Tango42: It is easier to get distracted on IRC, but as long as things are going well I think it is quicker.