Meetings/2009-05-05/IRC
< Meetings | 2009-05-05
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
#wikimedia-uk-board
[2009-05-05 20:32:21] <AndrewRT> hi all [2009-05-05 20:32:23] <skenmy> hey andrew [2009-05-05 20:32:28] <AndrewRT> hi Paul [2009-05-05 20:32:34] <skenmy> steve and seddon are going to be a few minutes late [2009-05-05 20:32:44] <AndrewRT> zeyi and Mike have sent their apologies [2009-05-05 20:32:59] <skenmy> cfp, around? [2009-05-05 20:33:27] <AndrewRT> are you chairing tonite skenmy? [2009-05-05 20:33:36] <skenmy> can do if no-one else wants to [2009-05-05 20:34:30] <AndrewRT> I have to do mins [2009-05-05 20:34:42] <skenmy> sure, I can chair [2009-05-05 20:34:49] <cfp> yeah i'm here [2009-05-05 20:34:54] <skenmy> splendid [2009-05-05 20:35:31] <skenmy> Do we want to wait for Steve and Joe? [2009-05-05 20:35:39] <AndrewRT> we have to - not quorate yet [2009-05-05 20:35:51] <steve_v> i am watching [2009-05-05 20:36:00] <AndrewRT> hi steve [2009-05-05 20:36:04] <skenmy> that's 4 [2009-05-05 20:36:10] <AndrewRT> are u able to participate atm? [2009-05-05 20:36:16] <steve_v> Now yes [2009-05-05 20:36:20] <steve_v> was on phone [2009-05-05 20:36:30] <steve_v> work related problem in US [2009-05-05 20:36:35] <skenmy> Fun... [2009-05-05 20:36:38] <steve_v> those buggers never sleep [2009-05-05 20:36:48] <AndrewRT> :) [2009-05-05 20:37:05] <skenmy> Okay, if we have a quorum, I am happy to proceed :) [2009-05-05 20:37:06] <AndrewRT> skemny want to start? [2009-05-05 20:37:16] <skenmy> Okie dokie! [2009-05-05 20:37:23] =-= Mode #wikimedia-uk-board +o skenmy by ChanServ [2009-05-05 20:37:24] =-= Mode #wikimedia-uk-board +m by skenmy [2009-05-05 20:37:27] =-= Mode #wikimedia-uk-board -o skenmy by skenmy [2009-05-05 20:37:46] <skenmy> Okay! Board meeting of 5th May 2009 [2009-05-05 20:38:04] <skenmy> Item 1 - Constitution [2009-05-05 20:38:13] <skenmy> AndrewRT? You added this one? [2009-05-05 20:38:20] <AndrewRT> nope [2009-05-05 20:38:30] <AndrewRT> that just means establishing who's here! [2009-05-05 20:38:40] <skenmy> right! [2009-05-05 20:38:41] <AndrewRT> bot sure it's really neccessary as an agenda item [2009-05-05 20:38:49] <skenmy> Well, I count 4 heads present [2009-05-05 20:38:50] <AndrewRT> _not_ [2009-05-05 20:38:55] <AndrewRT> minuted! [2009-05-05 20:39:00] * skenmy ticks [2009-05-05 20:39:11] <skenmy> Item 2: Apologies for Absence [2009-05-05 20:39:14] <AndrewRT> zeyi and mike have asked me to pass on their apologies [2009-05-05 20:39:26] <AndrewRT> and jo sent apologies for late arrival to ?? [2009-05-05 20:39:35] <skenmy> I have an apology from Joe for his initial absence, he is endeavouring to arrive ASAP. [2009-05-05 20:39:38] <steve_v> Jo is coming [2009-05-05 20:39:54] <AndrewRT> agenda is here btw: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings /2009-05-05/Agenda [2009-05-05 20:40:12] <skenmy> Nothing more on Item 2? [2009-05-05 20:40:20] <AndrewRT> nope [2009-05-05 20:40:33] <skenmy> Moving swiftly onwards, Item 3: Minutes of Meetings dated 2009-04-26 (pre- and post-AGM) [2009-05-05 20:40:36] <AndrewRT> minutes for the pre-AGM meeting [2009-05-05 20:40:37] <AndrewRT> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2009-04-26a [2009-05-05 20:40:44] <AndrewRT> they're not quite chronolgical [2009-05-05 20:40:52] <AndrewRT> but do record all the decisions made [2009-05-05 20:41:05] <AndrewRT> (actually we reconvened twice to approve members) [2009-05-05 20:41:14] <AndrewRT> is the Board happy with them as they are? [2009-05-05 20:41:33] <cfp> yeah [2009-05-05 20:41:34] <steve_v> yes [2009-05-05 20:41:39] <skenmy> No objection for pre-AGM here. I would like to clarify (if it is deemed relevant at this point) the job titles of the directors? Does this need to be noted in the minutes? [2009-05-05 20:41:57] <AndrewRT> for the new directors? [2009-05-05 20:42:03] <skenmy> Yes [2009-05-05 20:42:12] <skenmy> for instance, my title [2009-05-05 20:42:20] <AndrewRT> it's relevant to http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2009-04-26 [2009-05-05 20:42:27] <skenmy> is it Volunteers Coordinator? Director? [2009-05-05 20:42:28] <AndrewRT> the post-AGM minutes - shall we move on to them? [2009-05-05 20:42:29] <skenmy> Indeed. [2009-05-05 20:42:40] <AndrewRT> well, it wasn't decided as such [2009-05-05 20:42:41] -->| Seddon (i=83fb8694@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-ed79774f43b1b52b) has joined #wikimedia-uk-board [2009-05-05 20:42:49] <AndrewRT> what do you suggest? [2009-05-05 20:42:52] <cfp> i left a bit earlier than is stated, but it doesn't matter too much [2009-05-05 20:42:52] =-= Mode #wikimedia-uk-board +v Seddon by ChanServ [2009-05-05 20:43:33] <AndrewRT> cfp - when was it you left? [2009-05-05 20:44:01] <skenmy> I was under the impression it was Volunteers Director, Events and Conferences Director, Corporate Relations Director, and Initiatives Director when I left the meeting - does the Board have any views on this? [2009-05-05 20:44:07] <cfp> after 18 [2009-05-05 20:44:15] <AndrewRT> cfp - I'll change this [2009-05-05 20:44:26] <AndrewRT> skenmy - i didn't think it was agreed but I'm happy to change [2009-05-05 20:44:39] <skenmy> if it's not agreed then I can bring it up in AOCB [2009-05-05 20:45:04] <cfp> i thought initiatives was projects. but they mean the same i guess [2009-05-05 20:45:10] <skenmy> Same thing :) [2009-05-05 20:45:40] <skenmy> okay - if no decision was made I can wait until AOB then bring it up :) [2009-05-05 20:45:46] <AndrewRT> no lets do it now [2009-05-05 20:45:50] <steve_v> Have no objections to any working titles of roles [2009-05-05 20:46:05] <AndrewRT> cfp - u ok with skenmy's proposed titles? [2009-05-05 20:46:09] <steve_v> have no objections to any changes [2009-05-05 20:46:12] <cfp> yup [2009-05-05 20:46:17] <AndrewRT> ok I'll change the mins then [2009-05-05 20:46:25] <skenmy> Seddon, any objections? [2009-05-05 20:46:32] <Seddon> none [2009-05-05 20:47:15] <skenmy> Other than that, no other issues with the minutes. [2009-05-05 20:47:19] <AndrewRT> done [2009-05-05 20:47:21] <steve_v> no [2009-05-05 20:47:40] <AndrewRT> none from me :) [2009-05-05 20:47:59] <skenmy> Moving on then [2009-05-05 20:48:08] <skenmy> Item 4: Minutes of AGM [2009-05-05 20:48:13] <AndrewRT> actions from the meeting? [2009-05-05 20:48:28] <skenmy> let's review. [2009-05-05 20:48:44] <AndrewRT> > JS agreed to arrange for a token of our appreciation to be sent to the retiring Board members, KTC and Mickey Conn, and to the tellers, James Humphreys and James Farrar. [2009-05-05 20:48:47] <AndrewRT> Seddon? [2009-05-05 20:49:07] <skenmy> (stepped back to Item 3, for the records) [2009-05-05 20:49:36] <Seddon> Action me again for that [2009-05-05 20:49:40] <AndrewRT> will do [2009-05-05 20:49:52] <AndrewRT> >> AT will file the necessary forms at Companies House regarding the changes of directors and the Special Resolutions. [2009-05-05 20:50:12] <AndrewRT> I've filed the special resolution for, director resignations and director appointments ... apart from one [2009-05-05 20:50:16] <AndrewRT> _form_ [2009-05-05 20:50:32] <AndrewRT> Mr V I need your details [2009-05-05 20:50:43] <steve_v> OK - offline I'd guess [2009-05-05 20:50:53] <AndrewRT> can I give you a call? [2009-05-05 20:50:58] <steve_v> yep [2009-05-05 20:51:08] <AndrewRT> ok [2009-05-05 20:51:22] <AndrewRT> > PW ... will arrange the April Newsletter [2009-05-05 20:51:31] <AndrewRT> thanks skenmy for sorting this [2009-05-05 20:51:41] <skenmy> April newsletter was distributed just in time to all talk pages and email addresses that subscibed [2009-05-05 20:51:47] <skenmy> slightly late to the mailing list [2009-05-05 20:52:03] <AndrewRT> >> It was agreed to add MP to the signatories so that any two of MP, AT and TH can authorise payments. TH will also set up these three on the on-line banking. TH will also notify the bank of the change in the directors. [2009-05-05 20:52:07] <AndrewRT> cfp? [2009-05-05 20:52:26] <cfp> i've applied for you to have online banking [2009-05-05 20:52:31] <cfp> have you heard anything back [2009-05-05 20:52:34] <AndrewRT> no [2009-05-05 20:52:38] <AndrewRT> would it be in the post? [2009-05-05 20:52:44] <AndrewRT> or email? [2009-05-05 20:52:46] <cfp> for the change of signatories we'll have to pass a resolution this meeting [2009-05-05 20:52:49] <cfp> in the post [2009-05-05 20:53:00] <AndrewRT> didn't we pass the resolution at the last meeting? [2009-05-05 20:53:05] <AndrewRT> I can type something up if you want [2009-05-05 20:53:17] <steve_v> I propose that resolution as desired [2009-05-05 20:53:18] <cfp> should have added it to the minutes earlier. well there's a very specific resolution text we have to pass [2009-05-05 20:53:35] <cfp> i'll have the text up by the time we get to treasurer's report [2009-05-05 20:53:40] <AndrewRT> thanks [2009-05-05 20:53:46] <AndrewRT> shall I c/f the action? [2009-05-05 20:53:51] <cfp> k [2009-05-05 20:54:08] <AndrewRT> >> Wiki user rights [2009-05-05 20:54:08] <AndrewRT> It was agreed to continue with the policy of the previous Board to make all Board members Bureaucrats on uk.wikimedia.org and to make all Board members plus trusted users Administrators. [2009-05-05 20:54:08] <AndrewRT> Therefore it was agreed that KTC and MC will be removed as Bureaucrats but kept as Admins. It was agreed to continue with User:Tango and User:Majorly as Admins. SC, JS, ZH and PW will added as Bureaucrats and SC, ZH, PW will be added as Admins. [2009-05-05 20:54:13] <AndrewRT> I've done all this [2009-05-05 20:54:20] <AndrewRT> thanks to Mike for his help! [2009-05-05 20:54:27] <AndrewRT> > MP agreed to look into setting up a Board-only private wiki for sharing confidential documents. [2009-05-05 20:54:37] <AndrewRT> he hasn't said anything - do we know anythign about this? [2009-05-05 20:54:50] <skenmy> Nothing heard here. c/f [2009-05-05 20:54:53] <AndrewRT> will do [2009-05-05 20:55:12] <steve_v> nothing heard either [2009-05-05 20:55:17] <AndrewRT> >> IRC user rights - PW will investigate and report back to the next meeting. [2009-05-05 20:55:28] <skenmy> okay [2009-05-05 20:55:30] <AndrewRT> results http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Meetings/2009-04-26#IRC_user_rights [2009-05-05 20:55:44] <skenmy> They have changed somewhat [2009-05-05 20:55:49] <AndrewRT> do we want to decide now, offline or later? [2009-05-05 20:56:03] <AndrewRT> what have they changed to? [2009-05-05 20:56:08] <skenmy> #wikimedia-uk / -board / -board-private now have both mpeel and I as founders [2009-05-05 20:56:46] <skenmy> -uk also has the IRC Group Contact, James_F [2009-05-05 20:57:12] <AndrewRT> so uk has mpeel, skemny and James_F? [2009-05-05 20:57:19] <skenmy> Correct [2009-05-05 20:57:26] <AndrewRT> do we want James_F to continue? [2009-05-05 20:57:42] <skenmy> as the group contact he has ultimate authority over the channel [2009-05-05 20:57:57] <skenmy> removing the rights is next to useless [2009-05-05 20:58:12] <AndrewRT> do we want the other board members as founders? [2009-05-05 20:58:21] <AndrewRT> in case u two aren't around for a meeting? [2009-05-05 20:58:34] <skenmy> Founders have the ability to change channel settings [2009-05-05 20:58:47] <skenmy> so I can't see why not, limits permitting [2009-05-05 20:58:59] <skenmy> action me to look into it, and I will continue discussion on-wiki [2009-05-05 20:59:09] <AndrewRT> ok i propose this then [2009-05-05 20:59:42] <AndrewRT> coud we just decide now subject to technical issues? [2009-05-05 20:59:50] <AndrewRT> action you to implement? [2009-05-05 20:59:51] <skenmy> Sure [2009-05-05 20:59:54] <steve_v> OK [2009-05-05 21:00:05] <AndrewRT> cfp, u happy with the proposal? [2009-05-05 21:00:14] <skenmy> Just one amendment [2009-05-05 21:00:27] <AndrewRT> ? [2009-05-05 21:00:47] <skenmy> I propose that all board members are listed as founders, unless technically impossible, in which case they will all be granted at least operator access to the channels listed (-uk / -board / -board-private) [2009-05-05 21:00:53] <AndrewRT> sure [2009-05-05 21:01:06] <skenmy> action me on that [2009-05-05 21:01:12] <AndrewRT> doen [2009-05-05 21:01:39] <AndrewRT> ok to move on? [2009-05-05 21:01:48] <skenmy> fine here - anyone else? [2009-05-05 21:01:55] <steve_v> ok [2009-05-05 21:01:56] <AndrewRT> >> It was thought MC and User:Jdforrester are the two owners of the list. AT will email to get the owners changed to the current Board members only. [Note: it's actually Jdforrester and David Gerard - see notice at the bottom of this page [2009-05-05 21:02:06] <AndrewRT> didi you all see my email? [2009-05-05 21:02:19] <skenmy> I did [2009-05-05 21:02:26] <AndrewRT> I suggest rather than "changed to the current Board members only" change to the OTRS address [2009-05-05 21:02:38] <AndrewRT> comments? [2009-05-05 21:02:43] <steve_v> none [2009-05-05 21:02:50] <skenmy> support :) [2009-05-05 21:03:03] <AndrewRT> k I'll do that then [2009-05-05 21:03:12] <skenmy> one question - what's the current status of OTRS? [2009-05-05 21:03:22] <AndrewRT> set up doing nothing [2009-05-05 21:03:31] <skenmy> any access granted? [2009-05-05 21:03:34] <AndrewRT> er - no [2009-05-05 21:03:52] <AndrewRT> action me to grant to all board members? [2009-05-05 21:03:54] <skenmy> Can we get an action on someone to push that forwards? [2009-05-05 21:04:10] <steve_v> agree [2009-05-05 21:04:17] <AndrewRT> anyone else in addition to Board? [2009-05-05 21:04:27] <Seddon> not for the moment [2009-05-05 21:04:32] <skenmy> Agreed. [2009-05-05 21:05:03] <skenmy> But we can't rule out the possibility of volunteers assisting us with mounting email queues :) [2009-05-05 21:05:15] <AndrewRT> ok [2009-05-05 21:05:23] <AndrewRT> I'll action only the Board for now [2009-05-05 21:05:38] <AndrewRT> shall i continue? [2009-05-05 21:05:43] <skenmy> fine here [2009-05-05 21:05:48] <steve_v> yes [2009-05-05 21:05:49] <cfp> yup [2009-05-05 21:05:51] <AndrewRT> >> AT agreed to contact Alison Wheeler to get a complete list of all @wikimedia.org.uk emails and to update them for the new Board. [2009-05-05 21:05:56] <AndrewRT> er - in progress [2009-05-05 21:06:06] <AndrewRT> ok to action me & Mp to continue? [2009-05-05 21:06:07] <cfp> the .org.uk addresses are still broken? [2009-05-05 21:06:10] <AndrewRT> yes [2009-05-05 21:06:18] <AndrewRT> board@wikimedia.co.uk works [2009-05-05 21:06:30] <AndrewRT> suggest everyone uses it when contacting board members [2009-05-05 21:06:40] <AndrewRT> .org.uk hope to get working again soon! [2009-05-05 21:06:46] <skenmy> is it possible to get individual addresses on the .co.uk? [2009-05-05 21:06:51] <AndrewRT> yes [2009-05-05 21:07:02] <skenmy> (perhaps forwarding to the .org.uk addresses) [2009-05-05 21:07:04] <AndrewRT> shall we action MP to do that? [2009-05-05 21:07:07] <skenmy> ((when they are working)) [2009-05-05 21:07:43] <AndrewRT> shall i continue? [2009-05-05 21:07:44] <skenmy> I'd say hold fire for now - could get a bit confusing [2009-05-05 21:07:49] <AndrewRT> oh ok then [2009-05-05 21:08:00] <skenmy> wait until we are settled with the domains [2009-05-05 21:08:06] <AndrewRT> do you want to speak privately to mpeel about this skenmy? [2009-05-05 21:08:21] <AndrewRT> possibly no need to go through board approval for every address [2009-05-05 21:08:36] <steve_v> I second that sentiment [2009-05-05 21:08:50] <skenmy> It was just an inquisitve question - I am not desperate for an address :) [2009-05-05 21:08:56] <Seddon> agree :) [2009-05-05 21:08:56] <AndrewRT> :) [2009-05-05 21:09:01] <AndrewRT> >> AT agreed to look into getting an OTRS account for email enquiries [2009-05-05 21:09:07] <AndrewRT> done as discussed before [2009-05-05 21:09:13] <AndrewRT> I've taken an action to sort out access [2009-05-05 21:09:19] * skenmy nods [2009-05-05 21:09:23] <AndrewRT> >> It was agreed that all Board members be subscribed to the chapters list and that AT, TH, MP, PW and SV be subscribed to internal. [2009-05-05 21:09:33] <AndrewRT> you're probably aware that's been done! [2009-05-05 21:09:43] <steve_v> oh yes! [2009-05-05 21:09:49] <AndrewRT> apologies for your inboxes which probably haven't recovered yet! [2009-05-05 21:10:01] <steve_v> :-) [2009-05-05 21:10:06] <skenmy> :D [2009-05-05 21:10:09] <AndrewRT> you can turn the subsription to no messages or digests if you want [2009-05-05 21:10:17] <AndrewRT> and read the messages online [2009-05-05 21:10:36] <AndrewRT> it messes up the conversation linking but other than that works [2009-05-05 21:10:43] <steve_v> If you read you learn - worth doing [2009-05-05 21:10:49] <AndrewRT> give me a call if you want more info [2009-05-05 21:10:56] <AndrewRT> yes true! [2009-05-05 21:10:56] <steve_v> OK [2009-05-05 21:11:05] <AndrewRT> >> JS will approach internal-l to see if he can get individual membership for himself and ZH. [2009-05-05 21:11:09] <AndrewRT> Seddon? [2009-05-05 21:11:55] <Seddon> unlikely based on being a board member, would have to be based on own merits [2009-05-05 21:12:23] <AndrewRT> any chance then? [2009-05-05 21:12:45] <Seddon> doubtful at present time [2009-05-05 21:13:11] <AndrewRT> do we want to change the 5 people we have subscribed then? [2009-05-05 21:13:41] <AndrewRT> or shall I take an action to forward any important discussions to board@ [2009-05-05 21:14:11] <AndrewRT> Seddon? [2009-05-05 21:14:17] -->| kibble (n=cbrown@wikimedia/Cbrown1023) has joined #wikimedia-uk-board [2009-05-05 21:14:20] <skenmy> We can certainly keep Joe and Zeyi informed. [2009-05-05 21:14:46] <Seddon> i suppose the key thing would be to ensure that those people on internal-l are taking part in the discussion [2009-05-05 21:14:59] <Seddon> discussions* [2009-05-05 21:15:00] <AndrewRT> sure [2009-05-05 21:15:09] <AndrewRT> ok [2009-05-05 21:15:14] <AndrewRT> move on? [2009-05-05 21:15:20] <Seddon> sure thing :) [2009-05-05 21:15:21] <skenmy> fine here [2009-05-05 21:15:26] <steve_v> ok [2009-05-05 21:15:55] <AndrewRT> >> Chair will distribute agenda at least 48 hours before and confirm attendence [2009-05-05 21:15:57] <AndrewRT> whcih he did! [2009-05-05 21:16:15] <AndrewRT> >> Further to discussions at the Berlin chapters meeting, a request has been drafted for wide ranging permission from the Foundation to use all their trademarks including the name and logo for "Wikipedia". AT agreed to send this round the new Board and then if all members are happy, send to the Foundation. [2009-05-05 21:16:31] <AndrewRT> well, I sent round the email [2009-05-05 21:16:47] <AndrewRT> but given the new Chapters Agreement decided against sending it out t teh Foundation [2009-05-05 21:17:01] <AndrewRT> suggest we take this under the Agenda Pt 8 [2009-05-05 21:17:02] * skenmy nods [2009-05-05 21:17:23] <AndrewRT> >> It was agreed that we would ask for a quote from a commercial law company for written advice regarding: [2009-05-05 21:17:44] <AndrewRT> thanks cfp for that - will be discussed under Agenda point 6 [2009-05-05 21:17:51] <AndrewRT> >> AT will also follow up LawWorks. [2009-05-05 21:17:56] <AndrewRT> I've done that - drafted an application [2009-05-05 21:18:03] <AndrewRT> ditto, follow up under pt 6?? [2009-05-05 21:18:07] * skenmy nods [2009-05-05 21:18:19] <steve_v> ok [2009-05-05 21:18:21] <AndrewRT> >> It was agreed to issue a press release within the next 24 hours regarding our AGM. MP agreed to draft [2009-05-05 21:18:33] <AndrewRT> he drafted it and sent it round but was it issued? [2009-05-05 21:18:37] <skenmy> This didn't happen, as far as I know? [2009-05-05 21:18:46] <steve_v> no it did not [2009-05-05 21:19:00] <Seddon> with regards to the fall out from HMRC [2009-05-05 21:19:07] <Seddon> it didnt get any further than the register [2009-05-05 21:19:15] <AndrewRT> yeah [2009-05-05 21:19:18] <steve_v> I am not surprised [2009-05-05 21:19:24] <AndrewRT> interesting wikinews rejected it as "not notable" [2009-05-05 21:19:33] <AndrewRT> as a story I mean [2009-05-05 21:19:33] <skenmy> Indeed... [2009-05-05 21:19:43] <cfp> haha [2009-05-05 21:19:49] <AndrewRT> :) [2009-05-05 21:19:52] <Seddon> even the register article was neutral for the register [2009-05-05 21:20:00] <Seddon> although inaccurate [2009-05-05 21:20:04] <steve_v> By curtailing any potential statement we made on HMRC we strangled the life out of it as a story [2009-05-05 21:20:11] <AndrewRT> well it was just an excuse to knock wikipedia [2009-05-05 21:20:37] <AndrewRT> so, should we leave this action to fall? [2009-05-05 21:20:43] <AndrewRT> i.e. AGM press release? [2009-05-05 21:20:58] <AndrewRT> guess not much point doing it now [2009-05-05 21:21:03] * skenmy nods [2009-05-05 21:21:07] <skenmy> It's a tad late [2009-05-05 21:21:08] <Seddon> yer, may as well [2009-05-05 21:21:13] <skenmy> the AGM was summarised in the Newsletter [2009-05-05 21:21:16] <AndrewRT> well, thats the mins done! [2009-05-05 21:21:20] <skenmy> huzzah! [2009-05-05 21:21:26] <skenmy> Item 4: Minutes from AGM [2009-05-05 21:21:40] <AndrewRT> any actions here? [2009-05-05 21:21:46] <skenmy> zero. [2009-05-05 21:21:57] <AndrewRT> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2009_AGM/Minutes [2009-05-05 21:22:09] <AndrewRT> should we approve them? [2009-05-05 21:22:13] <AndrewRT> any changes? [2009-05-05 21:22:17] <skenmy> No issues here! [2009-05-05 21:22:37] <steve_v> was there someone we intended to thank that we have left out? [2009-05-05 21:22:56] <AndrewRT> erm good point [2009-05-05 21:23:00] <AndrewRT> speakers? [2009-05-05 21:23:11] * Seddon thanks himself [2009-05-05 21:23:21] <steve_v> yes - may be a nice touch [2009-05-05 21:23:24] <skenmy> Thanks, AndrewRT :) [2009-05-05 21:23:30] <skenmy> That's half done! [2009-05-05 21:23:31] <AndrewRT> hehe [2009-05-05 21:23:40] <AndrewRT> I've dropped a note to Steve Bowbrick [2009-05-05 21:23:45] <skenmy> Definately a nice touch [2009-05-05 21:24:24] <Seddon> the dude from WfS ?# [2009-05-05 21:24:27] <AndrewRT> shall I thank Duncan? [2009-05-05 21:24:34] <Seddon> yes :) [2009-05-05 21:24:37] <skenmy> Absolutely [2009-05-05 21:24:39] <Seddon> thats who i meant :) [2009-05-05 21:24:39] <AndrewRT> Seddon want to add it to your list? [2009-05-05 21:24:48] -->| KTC (n=KTC@wikipedia/KTC) has joined #wikimedia-uk-board [2009-05-05 21:24:52] <Seddon> ill need contact details [2009-05-05 21:25:02] <AndrewRT> I'll email them to you [2009-05-05 21:25:02] <Seddon> but yes:) [2009-05-05 21:25:09] <Seddon> sure thing [2009-05-05 21:25:10] <AndrewRT> ok - action Seddon then [2009-05-05 21:25:29] <skenmy> any issues with the AGM Minutes? Changes? [2009-05-05 21:25:35] <steve_v> Can you share them with me? I'd like to ask him a couple of things [2009-05-05 21:25:46] <steve_v> nothing for today though [2009-05-05 21:25:54] <AndrewRT> steve_v sure [2009-05-05 21:26:25] <skenmy> I can see some things i'd like to discuss with both our external speakers, too [2009-05-05 21:26:31] <skenmy> but again, that's for later [2009-05-05 21:26:32] <AndrewRT> yeah me too [2009-05-05 21:26:35] <skenmy> i'll email you, AndrewRT [2009-05-05 21:26:40] <AndrewRT> sure [2009-05-05 21:26:42] <skenmy> anyway - all happy to proceed? [2009-05-05 21:26:47] <steve_v> how about sharing all speakers details with board? [2009-05-05 21:26:52] <AndrewRT> yeah why not! [2009-05-05 21:26:56] <skenmy> action that. [2009-05-05 21:26:59] <AndrewRT> done [2009-05-05 21:27:02] <steve_v> and we speak in individual capacity to them [2009-05-05 21:27:36] <skenmy> Okay! I think we can skip Item 5. It has become a bit null as MP isn't here and the release didn't happen. [2009-05-05 21:27:41] <AndrewRT> yep [2009-05-05 21:27:54] <skenmy> In which case [2009-05-05 21:28:03] <skenmy> Item 6.1: Response to HMRC rejection - Media (MP) [2009-05-05 21:28:08] <steve_v> we did draft a statement to the media [2009-05-05 21:28:14] <skenmy> anyone have anything to say in Mike's absence? [2009-05-05 21:28:17] <AndrewRT> it went to wikinews [2009-05-05 21:28:18] <Seddon> ill take that for mp [2009-05-05 21:28:40] <AndrewRT> how do you think we handled it? [2009-05-05 21:28:52] <steve_v> It was brief and saying something like "we regret the decision and are working on ways to overturn it' [2009-05-05 21:28:56] <Seddon> just to say on the record, the register had an article that was relatively neutral, wikinews rejected the article and there was no further media response [2009-05-05 21:29:46] <steve_v> true [2009-05-05 21:29:59] <AndrewRT> lots of people in the wikimedia community have come to hear of it [2009-05-05 21:30:11] <skenmy> Any lessons learnt? [2009-05-05 21:30:18] <skenmy> (WRT Media releases) [2009-05-05 21:30:22] <AndrewRT> what effect do you think the whole incident has had on our reputation? [2009-05-05 21:30:39] <steve_v> prepare statements in advance for different scenarios at board level [2009-05-05 21:30:46] <--| markie_ has left #wikimedia-uk-board [2009-05-05 21:30:55] <steve_v> no major issues externally [2009-05-05 21:31:00] <AndrewRT> do we need to be quicker to respond? [2009-05-05 21:31:00] <steve_v> perhaps internally [2009-05-05 21:31:12] <skenmy> I can't see anything changing wildly - anything from the observers? #wikimedia-uk [2009-05-05 21:31:17] <steve_v> not when legal matters are concerned [2009-05-05 21:31:29] <Seddon> AndrewRT: id say that the effects internally were minimal [2009-05-05 21:31:33] <skenmy> (changing wildly wrt our reputation) [2009-05-05 21:31:49] <AndrewRT> thats good [2009-05-05 21:31:58] <AndrewRT> some people on the email list made some negative comments [2009-05-05 21:31:58] <Seddon> seen no real slating of the way we handled it other than from on our list but again that was minimal [2009-05-05 21:32:06] <skenmy> Obviously we have a very different viewpoint on things from the inside [2009-05-05 21:32:10] <steve_v> sometimes little or no comment means the story dies a slow death [2009-05-05 21:32:47] <steve_v> being combative with a negative comment (Register) can be counter productive [2009-05-05 21:32:57] <AndrewRT> so we wouldn't do anything different if it happened again? [2009-05-05 21:32:59] <Seddon> indeed [2009-05-05 21:33:02] <steve_v> unless you have a killer comment or example to use - don't [2009-05-05 21:33:18] <AndrewRT> steve_v - yes I agree: the tone was just right [2009-05-05 21:33:23] * skenmy agrees [2009-05-05 21:33:59] <skenmy> from #wikimedia-uk [2009-05-05 21:33:59] <skenmy> � [2009-05-05 21:34:01] <skenmy> <KTC> well, i'll wouldn't have "announced it" via the mailing list like we did before the agm ;) [2009-05-05 21:34:02] <skenmy> <KTC> maybe in person at the agm first would had been better, or at least take longer to prepare for it first [2009-05-05 21:34:41] <AndrewRT> yeah the timing was he worst possible [2009-05-05 21:34:43] <Seddon> i agree, discuss it in-board then get views from UK community [2009-05-05 21:34:46] <steve_v> the statement was bounced around Monday and Tuesday (2 days) before it was agreed [2009-05-05 21:35:06] <AndrewRT> it's teh annoucement I made the Thursday before that KTC is referring to [2009-05-05 21:35:13] <steve_v> OK [ 2009-05-05 21:35:17] <steve_v> sorry [2009-05-05 21:35:23] <AndrewRT> sent to board and WMUK-L at the same time [2009-05-05 21:35:23] <steve_v> :( [2009-05-05 21:35:39] <AndrewRT> well, I'll take that on as a "learning point" [2009-05-05 21:35:40] <AndrewRT> :) [2009-05-05 21:35:44] <Seddon> :) [2009-05-05 21:36:25] <AndrewRT> although it is a change from the Board's previous approach of being open [2009-05-05 21:36:50] <skenmy> AndrewRT, we have noted that it is time to move the administrative stuff into the background [2009-05-05 21:37:13] <AndrewRT> yes I suppose thats true [2009-05-05 21:37:16] <AndrewRT> ok [2009-05-05 21:37:22] <Seddon> I think keeping the community up to speed is the most important thing. We as a board need to consolodate our position [2009-05-05 21:37:41] <Seddon> then once we as a board are on the same page and understand whats going on [2009-05-05 21:37:50] <Seddon> we can then approach the community to get comment [2009-05-05 21:37:51] <Seddon> s* [2009-05-05 21:37:56] <skenmy> I am not saying keep the community in the dark, of course, rather that... took the words out of my mouth, Seddon [2009-05-05 21:38:02] <steve_v> HMRC letter? [2009-05-05 21:38:03] <cfp> yeah i agree with seddon. we have to let the community fairly quickly, but things should normally be cleared by us first [2009-05-05 21:38:05] <AndrewRT> ok [2009-05-05 21:38:33] <skenmy> okay to move on? [2009-05-05 21:38:37] <AndrewRT> sure [2009-05-05 21:38:38] <Seddon> yep [2009-05-05 21:38:40] <steve_v> yes [2009-05-05 21:38:46] <skenmy> 6.2: Legal Advice (TH) [2009-05-05 21:38:51] <skenmy> cfp? [2009-05-05 21:39:40] <AndrewRT> can I make a comment? [2009-05-05 21:39:41] <cfp> so i've been in conversation privately with andrew and my friendly barrister [2009-05-05 21:39:45] <cfp> go ahead [2009-05-05 21:39:58] <AndrewRT> no sorry - you continue [2009-05-05 21:40:07] <AndrewRT> thought you were mia :) [2009-05-05 21:40:07] <skenmy> Do we need to go in-camera? [2009-05-05 21:40:11] |<-- Seddon has left irc.freenode.net ("http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client") [2009-05-05 21:40:20] <AndrewRT> not yet I dont think [2009-05-05 21:40:29] <AndrewRT> cfp? [2009-05-05 21:40:38] -->| Seddon_ (i=83fb8694@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-214397f7597e4367) has joined #wikimedia-uk-board [2009-05-05 21:41:00] <cfp> ok [2009-05-05 21:41:02] <--| Seddon_ has left #wikimedia-uk-board [2009-05-05 21:41:15] <cfp> so andrew asked for a quote [2009-05-05 21:41:21] -->| Seddon (i=83fb8694@Wikimedia/Seddon) has joined #wikimedia-uk-board [2009-05-05 21:41:26] =-= Mode #wikimedia-uk-board +v Seddon by ChanServ [2009-05-05 21:41:29] <Seddon> ok im here [2009-05-05 21:41:36] <skenmy> missed nothing :) [2009-05-05 21:41:41] <Seddon> :p [2009-05-05 21:42:08] <cfp> and we obtained a range of prices between £600 and £4000 [2009-05-05 21:42:09] <AndrewRT> cfp - do you want to summarise what he said? [2009-05-05 21:42:25] <cfp> the suggestion being that £600 would get you something worse than what we already have [2009-05-05 21:42:26] <Seddon> wow, that is a fair old range [2009-05-05 21:42:34] <cfp> (sorry for the delay, was just finding the email) [2009-05-05 21:42:43] <AndrewRT> was £600 for a high street firm of solicitors [2009-05-05 21:42:57] <AndrewRT> and £4000 for an expert barrister's opinion? [2009-05-05 21:42:59] <cfp> there's a mid-point option of £2000+vat for going directly to a barrister [2009-05-05 21:43:01] <AndrewRT> or something like that [2009-05-05 21:43:10] <steve_v> pricey [2009-05-05 21:43:15] <AndrewRT> yes! [2009-05-05 21:43:22] <AndrewRT> but about what we expected [2009-05-05 21:43:28] <skenmy> Indeed. [2009-05-05 21:43:28] <cfp> £4000 was for a specialist solicitors firm [2009-05-05 21:43:29] <Seddon> indeed [2009-05-05 21:43:29] <AndrewRT> thanks for getting that cfp [2009-05-05 21:43:37] <cfp> so as i suggested previously [2009-05-05 21:43:53] <cfp> i think we'd be kind of fool hardy agreeing to pay for legal advice [2009-05-05 21:44:02] <cfp> we have some good legal advice already [2009-05-05 21:44:17] <AndrewRT> can I make a comment on this [ 2009-05-05 21:44:31] <AndrewRT> I was updating http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board the other day [2009-05-05 21:44:31] * Seddon will comment after AndrewRT [2009-05-05 21:44:34] <cfp> i'd suggest we'd be best off just editing that letter till we're happy and sending it off, with the intention of it going through to the CC appeal process [2009-05-05 21:44:44] <steve_v> I had my doubts as Tom knows - but I think what Tom has prepared with his 'legal team' is good stuff after reading it [2009-05-05 21:44:51] <AndrewRT> and one thing stood out from a governance point of view: [2009-05-05 21:45:10] <AndrewRT> "Board members have certain legal duties and responsibilities, which include [2009-05-05 21:45:21] <AndrewRT> "4. To exercise independent judgement and reasonable care, skill and diligence and consider getting external professional advice on all matters where there may be material risk to the chapter, or where the board members may be in breach of their duties [2009-05-05 21:45:44] <AndrewRT> I think this phrase is written for times like this [2009-05-05 21:45:52] <cfp> i'm not sure there's a risk to the chapter here [2009-05-05 21:45:59] <cfp> we try with what we have [2009-05-05 21:46:17] <cfp> if that fails we still have the option of getting more formal legal advice afterwards [2009-05-05 21:46:21] <skenmy> <KTC> considered taking up WMF's offer on them paying for some or all of money for legal advice ? [2009-05-05 21:46:33] <cfp> do you have an eta from law works andrew? [2009-05-05 21:46:34] <steve_v> I was a sceptic but now I am a Tom convert [2009-05-05 21:46:34] <AndrewRT> well, there's a risk that we could spend a lot of effort, time and potentially money persuing an issue where we aren't eventually successful [2009-05-05 21:47:10] <Seddon> One thing I will raise just to give you ad idea that we wont be in for a quick easy and smooth ride with CC... [2009-05-05 21:47:18] <AndrewRT> oh dear [2009-05-05 21:47:25] <Seddon> I have been in touch with the legal councel for icommons [2009-05-05 21:47:27] <steve_v> only one? [2009-05-05 21:47:38] <AndrewRT> icommons? [2009-05-05 21:47:45] <Seddon> icommons if you dont know is currently the uk's only open knowledge charity [2009-05-05 21:47:56] <Seddon> jimmy wales sits on the board [2009-05-05 21:48:04] <AndrewRT> oh interesting [2009-05-05 21:48:25] <Seddon> and the dude who set up creative commons is on there as well [2009-05-05 21:48:46] <AndrewRT> what did he have to say? [2009-05-05 21:49:34] <Seddon> the legal councel person said that "In 2005, Charities [commission] was unfamiliar with the concept of open sharing practices and did not understand the benefit to the public." [2009-05-05 21:50:13] <Seddon> "We exchanged more information by letter and telephone and finally had to give them a nudge to make their decision." [2009-05-05 21:50:32] <cfp> i don't think not becoming a charity is an option for us. [2009-05-05 21:50:44] <cfp> so i think we accept that this might be a fight [2009-05-05 21:50:59] <steve_v> that suggests more information to support Tom's excellent letter and to define what we do better is an option [2009-05-05 21:51:00] <Seddon> i think using these people as example when in communication with CC will be of use to us [2009-05-05 21:51:05] <cfp> but you never know, we might be lucky. it doesn't hurt to try the easy options first [2009-05-05 21:51:06] <AndrewRT> we can certainly function as a non-charity [2009-05-05 21:51:07] <skenmy> Seddon, agreed. [2009-05-05 21:51:16] <AndrewRT> and there are options as to how we go about it [2009-05-05 21:51:56] <AndrewRT> Key question is: do we want to take legal advice before replying to HMRC? [2009-05-05 21:52:03] <Seddon> and if the board is happy, ill continue communicating with the icommons legal councel with our situation as they will likely have been asked the same question and faced similar issues [2009-05-05 21:52:05] <cfp> i think i'd be deeply uncomfortable remaining on the board if we'd resigned to never becoming a charity [2009-05-05 21:52:16] <AndrewRT> cfp - why? [2009-05-05 21:52:21] <skenmy> Seddon, that's a good plan [2009-05-05 21:52:31] <AndrewRT> Seddon - yes please [2009-05-05 21:52:36] <steve_v> I back the seddon plan [2009-05-05 21:52:57] <Seddon> there are other things associated with icommons that ill bring up later on [2009-05-05 21:53:20] <steve_v> can they advise on how we can support our current position (the letter) [2009-05-05 21:54:24] <cfp> well if we're not a charity i wouldn't be entirely sure why we exist. a large part of the reason for our existence is to take donations that would otherwise go to wmf and be able to reclaim the tax on them. [2009-05-05 21:54:37] <Seddon> I back up cfp here [2009-05-05 21:54:38] <cfp> andrew, how long will law works take to get back to you [2009-05-05 21:54:53] <Seddon> it is possibly our most important aim [2009-05-05 21:54:54] <cfp> if it's a week or so i'd be happy to wait for them. [2009-05-05 21:54:54] <steve_v> we need charity status I agree [2009-05-05 21:54:59] <skenmy> I think obtaining charitable status is highly important [2009-05-05 21:55:00] <AndrewRT> <AndrewRT> haven't submitted it yet [2009-05-05 21:55:00] <AndrewRT> <AndrewRT> needs lots of text - though this would be best going round the board first [2009-05-05 21:55:09] <skenmy> So we must exhaust all available routes [2009-05-05 21:55:11] <cfp> sorry. missed those comments [2009-05-05 21:55:12] <AndrewRT> i get the impression it'd be more than a week [2009-05-05 21:55:36] <AndrewRT> I disagree that without charity status we may as well pack up shop [2009-05-05 21:55:42] <AndrewRT> there's plenty we can do without [2009-05-05 21:55:49] <skenmy> also agreed. [2009-05-05 21:55:56] <AndrewRT> like the free content agreements WM-DE have just completed [2009-05-05 21:56:01] <Seddon> appeal to hmrc? [2009-05-05 21:56:11] <steve_v> Isn't there a consensus to go for appeal and get it? [2009-05-05 21:56:20] <cfp> yeah. sure. but i think i'd feel compelled to resign based on the manifesto on which i originally stood if for no other reason [2009-05-05 21:56:26] <steve_v> So why discuss the hypothetical? [2009-05-05 21:56:37] <AndrewRT> the issue is do we appeal now [2009-05-05 21:56:38] <Seddon> *thinks we are off track here* [2009-05-05 21:56:40] <cfp> the question is how we go about appealing [2009-05-05 21:56:41] <steve_v> You are going nowhere Mr as you are too valuable [2009-05-05 21:56:47] <AndrewRT> or wait until we've done other things [2009-05-05 21:56:52] <cfp> the options are as follows: [2009-05-05 21:57:07] <cfp> 1) edit my barrister friend's letter and send it off. then see what happens. [2009-05-05 21:57:11] <skenmy> (this is now Item 6.3, I believe) [2009-05-05 21:57:18] <cfp> 2) apply to law works and wait [2009-05-05 21:57:21] <cfp> 3) pay for something [2009-05-05 21:57:34] <cfp> 4) combine 1) and 2) (do them in parallel) [2009-05-05 21:57:38] <cfp> 5) ignore the issue [2009-05-05 21:57:40] <skenmy> I am in favor of Item 4. [2009-05-05 21:57:50] <steve_v> 4) [2009-05-05 21:57:58] <skenmy> If those two routes fail, option 3. [2009-05-05 21:58:00] <AndrewRT> I'm worried that we will only get once chance here [2009-05-05 21:58:12] <AndrewRT> we need to get teh appeal exactly right before we send it off [2009-05-05 21:58:23] <skenmy> I've not gotten that impression, Andrew. We can just apply again, no? [2009-05-05 21:58:29] <AndrewRT> rather than saying one thing and then if that doesn't work, try another [2009-05-05 21:58:46] <skenmy> re: Item 3 - <cary> WM-UK needs to approach Sue and Erik [2009-05-05 21:58:46] <skenmy> <cary> "please help us with money" [2009-05-05 21:58:47] <skenmy> <cary> £££££££ [2009-05-05 21:58:52] <cfp> oh yeah that's 6 [2009-05-05 21:59:00] <cfp> what are mike's opinions andrew [2009-05-05 21:59:09] <Seddon> ok guys how about this for a plan of action: [2009-05-05 21:59:10] <AndrewRT> cfp - ? [2009-05-05 21:59:46] <AndrewRT> cfp> what are mike's opinions andrew ?? [2009-05-05 21:59:53] <Seddon> 1) spend one last week getting as much advice and opinions with the letter from whatever legal sources we have [2009-05-05 22:00:10] <Seddon> 2) ratify the letter and send to hmrc [2009-05-05 22:00:17] <cfp> i was presuming you'd spoken to mike about it. maybe you haven't. [2009-05-05 22:00:21] <Seddon> 3) whilst waiting for a response apply to lawworks [2009-05-05 22:00:42] <AndrewRT> cfp - i asked mike if he knew any lawyers who could help - he said no [2009-05-05 22:00:45] <Seddon> 4) if either 2 or 3 fail, contact the foundation for suport [2009-05-05 22:01:07] <Seddon> 2 + 3 ***** [2009-05-05 22:01:18] <AndrewRT> 4) support to do what - take it to judicial review? [2009-05-05 22:01:36] <AndrewRT> that'll cost more than £2,000! [2009-05-05 22:01:37] <steve_v> From what I have seen we have a good base to work from with the letter [2009-05-05 22:01:52] <skenmy> Seddon, I support that plan. We must remember that the WMF has offered assistance - monetary / legal / otherwise [2009-05-05 22:01:56] <steve_v> It needs more 'clarification' as to what we do - to support the premise [2009-05-05 22:02:14] <Seddon> AndrewRT no not quite that far in the future, if there are straight off issues but we need to work on the application id say thats a good point to have legal support [2009-05-05 22:02:16] <AndrewRT> I would like one week to be two weeks [2009-05-05 22:02:33] <cfp> it'd make sense to edit it on wiki for a few days, then get our friendly barrister to give it a final check prior to sending it off [2009-05-05 22:02:35] <AndrewRT> Seddon - if that's the case we need the support before we send the reply, not after [2009-05-05 22:02:55] <Seddon> we have a time limit on the appeal though dont we? [2009-05-05 22:02:59] <AndrewRT> no [2009-05-05 22:03:01] <skenmy> Nope [2009-05-05 22:03:08] <AndrewRT> technically it's not an appeal [2009-05-05 22:03:11] <AndrewRT> so no timelimit [2009-05-05 22:03:25] <Seddon> ah ok then so this is just further communication? [2009-05-05 22:03:30] <AndrewRT> yes [2009-05-05 22:03:35] <Seddon> ok [2009-05-05 22:03:53] <AndrewRT> although if we wait too long Mr Y might forget what he promised me! :) [2009-05-05 22:04:06] <skenmy> so [2009-05-05 22:04:16] <skenmy> can we have a PoA drawn up that everyone agrees with? [2009-05-05 22:04:22] <AndrewRT> I suggest we have two options: [2009-05-05 22:04:32] <steve_v> Discuss as a group - then - add additional clarification on purposes of our organisation - then send letter [2009-05-05 22:04:33] <AndrewRT> a) Get advice then send appeal [2009-05-05 22:04:40] <AndrewRT> or b) Send appeal then get advice [2009-05-05 22:04:54] <steve_v> so that makes me b) [2009-05-05 22:05:11] <steve_v> I don't think we'll get expert help in time [2009-05-05 22:05:21] <AndrewRT> it will certainly delay it [2009-05-05 22:05:56] <Seddon> b) but we should seek advice now anyway, if the advice is ready before we send the appeal fantastic if its not, then at least we wont have to wait too long between being turned down and getting legal advice [2009-05-05 22:06:02] <steve_v> If this is 'additional communication' it needs to address seddon's earlier 2005 point in its supporting documentation [2009-05-05 22:06:03] <Seddon> so c) :P [2009-05-05 22:06:21] <AndrewRT> advice wont be ready in a week [2009-05-05 22:06:38] <AndrewRT> steve_V which point was that? [2009-05-05 22:07:12] <steve_v> the legal councel person said that "In 2005, Charities [commission] was unfamiliar with the concept of open sharing practices and did not understand the benefit to the public." [2009-05-05 22:07:17] <steve_v> that one [2009-05-05 22:07:25] <skenmy> So, we solicit advice while editing the letter. If we recieve advice, we incorporate it into the "appeal" letter. If not, we send with our own discussed amendments. Deadline - Monday 18th? [2009-05-05 22:07:35] <steve_v> so as this is additional communication not a final letter - let's answer that as well [2009-05-05 22:07:45] <Seddon> skenmy, yes [2009-05-05 22:07:58] <AndrewRT> steve_v - yes I agree [2009-05-05 22:07:59] * Seddon calls for support of skenmy [2009-05-05 22:08:12] <cfp> yup sounds sensible to me [2009-05-05 22:08:17] <AndrewRT> ok I'm happy with 18th [2009-05-05 22:08:17] <skenmy> That gives a reasonable amount of time for the solicitation of advice and the discussion of edits to be made [2009-05-05 22:08:20] <steve_v> yep [2009-05-05 22:08:26] <skenmy> Okay! [2009-05-05 22:08:39] <skenmy> that's an action all, methinks [2009-05-05 22:08:55] <AndrewRT> where are we going to discuss this? [2009-05-05 22:09:05] <skenmy> cfp - we need to get the document up somewhere editable [2009-05-05 22:09:13] <AndrewRT> private or is public ok? [2009-05-05 22:09:20] <skenmy> not sure there [2009-05-05 22:09:33] <skenmy> is there any private information in the letter? [2009-05-05 22:09:39] <Seddon> the letter: public [2009-05-05 22:09:39] <cfp> public should be fine. i guess we could always use google docs instead? [2009-05-05 22:09:42] <steve_v> I sent an amended version back to Tom - but this now needs to answer the 2005 point more than it needs to change the core of the letter [2009-05-05 22:09:46] <skenmy> we can protect it on the wiki and ask people to not edit [2009-05-05 22:09:59] <steve_v> I think the letter is pretty damn close to perfect [2009-05-05 22:10:08] <steve_v> it is the extra stuff that needs to be defined [2009-05-05 22:10:10] <AndrewRT> I don't [2009-05-05 22:10:21] <AndrewRT> i think the letter is excellent so far as it goes [2009-05-05 22:10:39] <AndrewRT> it addresses the legal points which I would say is about a third of what we need to address [2009-05-05 22:10:47] <steve_v> It sets the 'HMRC thinking' [2009-05-05 22:11:01] <AndrewRT> we need to also talk about what exactly WMF/us actually do [2009-05-05 22:11:03] <steve_v> If we add the 2005 point material - it reinforces our case [2009-05-05 22:11:13] * Seddon agrees with andrewRT [2009-05-05 22:11:15] <steve_v> That comes in the 2005 point material [2009-05-05 22:11:27] <Seddon> we have a sound legal standing [2009-05-05 22:11:28] <cfp> yeah i agree with andrew that we certainly need to add some more material around the legal stuff [2009-05-05 22:11:29] <steve_v> so I agree with you [2009-05-05 22:11:37] <skenmy> agreed w/ andrew, here [2009-05-05 22:11:56] * Seddon points to peoples clocks [2009-05-05 22:12:01] <AndrewRT> ok - so agreed to edit on the wiki? [2009-05-05 22:12:04] <AndrewRT> or on google docs? [2009-05-05 22:12:08] <AndrewRT> gd point Seddon [2009-05-05 22:12:12] <Seddon> wiki [2009-05-05 22:12:18] <skenmy> are we happy to adjourn this to wiki and move on ASAP? [2009-05-05 22:12:27] <AndrewRT> as e've got till 18th I'm happy [2009-05-05 22:12:28] <steve_v> yep [2009-05-05 22:12:31] <Seddon> yep [2009-05-05 22:12:35] <skenmy> Okay. [2009-05-05 22:12:37] <AndrewRT> I'll put my thoughts together tomorrow! [2009-05-05 22:12:45] <cfp> treasurer's report? [2009-05-05 22:12:46] <AndrewRT> Action cfp to put on wiki? [2009-05-05 22:12:47] <skenmy> 7.1: Treasurer's Report inc. Membership Reports [2009-05-05 22:12:55] <cfp> fine. [2009-05-05 22:13:05] <skenmy> go, cfp! go! :D [2009-05-05 22:13:16] <cfp> balance is now at £397.70 as a few people have cashed cheques [2009-05-05 22:13:25] <cfp> we've had someone paying for membership [2009-05-05 22:13:32] <cfp> but they haven't yet sent me the form [2009-05-05 22:13:43] <AndrewRT> a new member! excellent [2009-05-05 22:13:45] <cfp> i've followed up with them, so hopefully i'll get it soonish [2009-05-05 22:13:55] <Seddon> so thats 27 now? [2009-05-05 22:14:05] <Seddon> or more? [2009-05-05 22:14:15] <AndrewRT> well, will be 28 if/when approved [2009-05-05 22:14:19] <cfp> yeah [2009-05-05 22:14:24] <Seddon> nice [2009-05-05 22:14:25] <skenmy> slightly off-topic but relevant to membership (just this one line): I plan to take a bunch of membership forms with me to the London Wikimeet this month :D [2009-05-05 22:14:32] <AndrewRT> good! [2009-05-05 22:14:35] <cfp> cool. [2009-05-05 22:14:37] <AndrewRT> good luck there [2009-05-05 22:15:02] <skenmy> okay cfp - thank you. Anything more? [2009-05-05 22:15:03] <cfp> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Board_meetings/2009-05-05/Resolutions [2009-05-05 22:15:08] <cfp> we need to pass that resolution. [2009-05-05 22:15:10] <skenmy> (7.1.1) [ 2009-05-05 22:15:25] <cfp> is everyone happy with that text? (it's lifted from the coop's application form) [2009-05-05 22:15:27] <AndrewRT> I'll second [2009-05-05 22:15:31] <steve_v> yes [2009-05-05 22:15:35] <skenmy> approve. [2009-05-05 22:15:47] <Seddon> approve [2009-05-05 22:15:56] <cfp> great [2009-05-05 22:16:03] <cfp> that's it from me [2009-05-05 22:16:08] <AndrewRT> thanks [2009-05-05 22:16:11] <skenmy> The Board resolves as written at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Board_meetings/2009-05-05/Resolutions [2009-05-05 22:16:18] <AndrewRT> I'll minute that [2009-05-05 22:16:30] <AndrewRT> Secretary (AT) [2009-05-05 22:16:31] <skenmy> 7.2 - Secretary's Report [2009-05-05 22:16:34] <AndrewRT> just one issue [2009-05-05 22:16:45] <AndrewRT> I got a letter from an activist group [2009-05-05 22:16:51] <skenmy> (7.2.1) [2009-05-05 22:16:59] <AndrewRT> asking us to change Wikipedia to their POV [2009-05-05 22:17:04] <AndrewRT> (a) who should respond - me? [2009-05-05 22:17:10] <AndrewRT> (b) how should I respond? [2009-05-05 22:17:14] <AndrewRT> guess options are: [2009-05-05 22:17:17] <Seddon> a) yes [2009-05-05 22:17:29] <AndrewRT> (i) tell them nowt to do with us, ring WMF [2009-05-05 22:17:29] <skenmy> Does this fall under the secretarial position? [2009-05-05 22:17:35] <steve_v> a) Yes [2009-05-05 22:17:38] <AndrewRT> skenmy - guess so [2009-05-05 22:17:46] <skenmy> In which case, a) yes [2009-05-05 22:17:55] <AndrewRT> (ii) say we'd love to help you learn to edit WP [2009-05-05 22:18:07] <AndrewRT> what do you think? [2009-05-05 22:18:15] <Seddon> both i suppose [2009-05-05 22:18:24] <skenmy> Both can be written in, surely? [2009-05-05 22:18:31] <AndrewRT> ok [2009-05-05 22:18:31] <Seddon> i think we should say that as a chapter we have no control over WP content [2009-05-05 22:18:40] <steve_v> say as much as you need and as little as you can [2009-05-05 22:18:44] <AndrewRT> yeah makes sense [2009-05-05 22:18:48] <AndrewRT> ok [2009-05-05 22:18:52] <Seddon> :) [2009-05-05 22:19:02] <AndrewRT> i was thinking i might ring them rather than write [2009-05-05 22:19:09] <skenmy> that's a tad more personal [2009-05-05 22:19:10] <steve_v> even better [2009-05-05 22:19:15] <AndrewRT> ok I'll do that [2009-05-05 22:19:21] <AndrewRT> I'll let you know how I get on! [2009-05-05 22:19:30] <AndrewRT> nothing else from sec report [2009-05-05 22:19:30] <skenmy> okay [2009-05-05 22:19:43] <steve_v> who were the group out of interest [2009-05-05 22:19:45] <skenmy> 8.1: Chapter Agreement Revision: Consultation with members (AT) [2009-05-05 22:20:32] <AndrewRT> steve_v - I've asnwered in personal message [2009-05-05 22:20:37] <AndrewRT> 8.1 [2009-05-05 22:20:38] <steve_v> OK [2009-05-05 22:21:15] <skenmy> AndrewRT? [2009-05-05 22:21:25] <AndrewRT> well, WMF have published their new draft agreement [2009-05-05 22:21:34] <AndrewRT> I've put it up on the wiki and put a note to the email group [2009-05-05 22:21:39] <AndrewRT> not much response as yet [2009-05-05 22:21:48] <AndrewRT> shall I summarise the main points from my POV? [2009-05-05 22:21:56] <skenmy> sure [2009-05-05 22:22:01] <AndrewRT> k [2009-05-05 22:22:04] <steve_v> ok [2009-05-05 22:22:15] <AndrewRT> The existing chapter agreement sees the two orgs as fully independent [2009-05-05 22:22:29] <AndrewRT> with the same goals, cooperating to acheive mutual goals [2009-05-05 22:22:42] <AndrewRT> thsi one states that the two orgs are still independent [2009-05-05 22:23:05] <AndrewRT> in practice it makes the chapter into an autonomous branch (my words) under the control of the WMF [2009-05-05 22:23:19] <AndrewRT> two clauses in particular: [2009-05-05 22:23:47] <AndrewRT> (a) Chapter shall ... comply with relevant requirements set forth in Foundation's bylaws and all chapter-related policies, procedures, handbooks, manuals, or other written guidance that may be promulgated by Foundation from time to time, including but not limited to those Foundation policies posted at http://wikimediafoundation.org and http://meta.wikimedia.org. [2009-05-05 22:24:18] <AndrewRT> (b) Chapter shall maintain records related to all of its operations...Chapter shall provide such other documents and data to Foundation as Foundation may reasonably request, and shall permit Foundation or Foundation's designated agent to review appropriate records of Chapter. [2009-05-05 22:24:50] <AndrewRT> I'd like to start a debate among our supporters as to whether this would be a positive change [2009-05-05 22:24:55] <AndrewRT> (a) for the chapter and [2009-05-05 22:25:03] <AndrewRT> (b) for the Wikimedia movement in general [2009-05-05 22:25:18] <cfp> i certainly don't like (a). and i think there was something else that struck me as somewhat inappropriate [2009-05-05 22:25:36] <skenmy> Okay [2009-05-05 22:25:50] <Seddon> 5 minutes to go [2009-05-05 22:25:55] <AndrewRT> ok - hopefully we can get the community's input here [2009-05-05 22:26:04] <steve_v> it is unpopular that is for sure [2009-05-05 22:26:08] <AndrewRT> onto our response - I suggest we go in camera for that [2009-05-05 22:26:32] <skenmy> perhaps an adjournment to board@, Andrew? [2009-05-05 22:26:50] <AndrewRT> just for two minues? [2009-05-05 22:28:24] <Seddon> steve_v [2009-05-05 22:28:29] <steve_v> yes [2009-05-05 22:28:36] <Seddon> check your pm's [2009-05-05 22:28:39] <AndrewRT> steve_V could you join us at the link I've pmd you [2009-05-05 22:28:56] <steve_v> PM? [2009-05-05 22:29:10] <AndrewRT> private message - should be another tab on your reader [2009-05-05 22:29:13] <skenmy> private message - check along the top of your mibbit screen [2009-05-05 22:29:18] <AndrewRT> with "AndrewRT" on it [2009-05-05 22:29:19] <Seddon> at the top andrewrt should be highlighted in red [2009-05-05 22:34:05] <AndrewRT> hi all [2009-05-05 22:34:07] <AndrewRT> back in the room [2009-05-05 22:34:09] * skenmy undraws curtain [2009-05-05 22:34:24] <AndrewRT> actions will be noted in the confidential minutes [2009-05-05 22:34:31] <skenmy> okay [2009-05-05 22:34:52] <skenmy> As we are now over our time limit - do we have any urgent maters arising or urgent matters from the agenda? [2009-05-05 22:35:12] <AndrewRT> we've done the two most important things [2009-05-05 22:35:28] <AndrewRT> does everyone agree with opting out of Phorm? [2009-05-05 22:35:35] <skenmy> agreed here [2009-05-05 22:35:36] <steve_v> yes [2009-05-05 22:35:43] <skenmy> (Item 9) [2009-05-05 22:35:59] <steve_v> can we get words to a minimum in the statement though [2009-05-05 22:36:06] <AndrewRT> cfp? [2009-05-05 22:36:17] <AndrewRT> Seddon? [2009-05-05 22:36:34] <steve_v> Don't make a big song and dance about it - just say we support the actions followed by fellow chapters [2009-05-05 22:36:38] <cfp> yeah i agree with opting out [2009-05-05 22:36:44] <AndrewRT> ok action me to write the letter? [2009-05-05 22:36:49] <AndrewRT> I'll pass it round first [2009-05-05 22:36:51] <skenmy> action: at [2009-05-05 22:36:56] <steve_v> please do [2009-05-05 22:37:21] <AndrewRT> anything else or are we done? [2009-05-05 22:37:22] <skenmy> I propose we defer Items 10 and 11 to email / next meeting? [2009-05-05 22:37:26] <AndrewRT> yeah agreed [2009-05-05 22:37:30] <Seddon> I agree [2009-05-05 22:37:32] <steve_v> agreed [2009-05-05 22:37:38] <skenmy> Motion to close - next date? [2009-05-05 22:37:40] <steve_v> when is next meeting? [2009-05-05 22:37:47] <AndrewRT> steve_V can you pm me your phone number? [2009-05-05 22:38:03] <AndrewRT> next Tuesday? [2009-05-05 22:38:06] <skenmy> Tuesday, 12th of May? [2009-05-05 22:38:06] <Seddon> next week? [2009-05-05 22:38:27] <steve_v> same time same place [2009-05-05 22:38:28] <AndrewRT> yep [2009-05-05 22:38:32] <Seddon> yep [2009-05-05 22:38:38] <steve_v> number done [2009-05-05 22:38:40] <skenmy> minutes are action at - agenda for next meeting is action mp [2009-05-05 22:38:53] <AndrewRT> sure [ 2009-05-05 22:38:54] <skenmy> Meeting closed! Thanks all for coming!
#wikimedia-uk
[2009-05-05 21:26:24] <AndrewRT> hi KTC!
[2009-05-05 21:26:45] <KTC> hello
[2009-05-05 21:30:53] =-= markie_ is now known as markie
[2009-05-05 21:31:54] <KTC> there was evetunally a thread on one of the wmf mailing list
[2009-05-05 21:32:08] <KTC> but most of that small thread was on critqueing the register article
[2009-05-05 21:32:11] <KTC> rather than the issue itself
[2009-05-05 21:32:21] <AndrewRT> yeah there was one on en-wiki too
[2009-05-05 21:32:21] |<-- Farosdaughter has left irc.freenode.net (Nick collision from services.)
[2009-05-05 21:33:28] <KTC> well, i'll wouldn't have "announced it" via the mailing list like we did before the agm ;)
[2009-05-05 21:33:44] <KTC> maybe in person at the agm first would had been better, or at least take longer to prepare for it first
[2009-05-05 21:34:25] <KTC> i understand why it happened the way it did, in relation to the timing at the agm, that was unfortunate
[2009-05-05 21:35:20] =-= markie is now known as markie|away
[2009-05-05 21:35:28] =-= markie|away is now known as markie|coding
[2009-05-05 21:35:48] <KTC> especially didn't help when the original email didn't get through...
[2009-05-05 21:35:58] =-= markie|coding is now known as markie|work
[2009-05-05 21:36:14] =-= markie|work is now known as markie
[2009-05-05 21:36:35] <AndrewRT> yeah that didn't help
[2009-05-05 21:36:50] <AndrewRT> first words the world saw were Mike's near-expletive!
[2009-05-05 21:37:55] <KTC> informing the community, and taking your time to prepare for it first are not mutally exclusive
[2009-05-05 21:40:12] |<-- Seddon has left irc.freenode.net ("http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client")
[2009-05-05 21:40:34] -->| Seddon_ (i=83fb8694@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-214397f7597e4367) has joined #wikimedia-uk
[2009-05-05 21:41:09] =-= Seddon_ is now known as Seddon
[2009-05-05 21:45:16] <KTC> considered taking up WMF's offer on them paying for some or all of money for legal advice ?
[2009-05-05 21:46:33] <cary> But we get to keep KTC in return
[2009-05-05 21:46:47] <AndrewRT> haha!
[2009-05-05 21:47:06] <skenmy> Deal!
[2009-05-05 21:47:11] * KTC run off to Wikimedia HK!
[2009-05-05 21:47:12] <KTC> :P
[2009-05-05 21:48:49] <cary> Joi Ito?
[2009-05-05 21:49:30] |<-- stwalkerster has left irc.freenode.net (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[2009-05-05 21:49:55] <Seddon> no diane is the name
[2009-05-05 21:52:28] <KTC> btw, i think (what I saw of the originial draft of) that letter is very good, first option on going through CC/HMRC own appeal process with it is good idea
[2009-05-05 21:52:45] <cary> "The Seddon plan"
[2009-05-05 21:53:31] <Seddon> cary, i believe it is commonly referred to as the forlorne hope in military circles
[2009-05-05 21:53:35] <skenmy> (TM)
[2009-05-05 21:56:47] <KTC> isn't arguing whether we can / should continue to function if we're definitely not going to be a charity a bit premature....
[2009-05-05 21:57:01] <Seddon> yer :P
[2009-05-05 21:57:50] <cary> WM-UK needs to approach Sue and Erik
[2009-05-05 21:57:57] <cary> "please help us with money"
[2009-05-05 21:58:25] <cary> £££££££
[2009-05-05 21:58:28] <KTC> is there a time limit on when to appeal ?
[2009-05-05 21:58:41] <AndrewRT> KTC - no
[2009-05-05 21:58:41] <KTC> cary, won't WMF be paying in $$$ ? :p
[2009-05-05 21:58:48] <AndrewRT> technically it's not an appeal
[2009-05-05 21:59:49] <cary> €€€€
[2009-05-05 21:59:50] <cfp> but i think waiting too long would be a mistake. things get forgotten.
[2009-05-05 22:02:13] <KTC> cary, would WMF consider helping with legal cost to take it all the way to court (or whatever it is) if it comes to that ?
[2009-05-05 22:02:36] <cary> KTC: I cannot speak to any more
[2009-05-05 22:02:59] <cary> Other than the statement that it is in the WMF interests to assist WM UK in its goals
[2009-05-05 22:08:50] <KTC> BTW, Wikimedia HK is a recognized charity in Hong Kong, which is based on English law
[2009-05-05 22:09:04] <AndrewRT> interesting thx
[2009-05-05 22:09:32] <cary> Good point to add
[2009-05-05 22:09:38] <KTC> http://wikimedia.hk/index.php/Memorandum_of_Association
[2009-05-05 22:09:38] <cary> Thanks KTC
[2009-05-05 22:18:08] <KTC> i & ii ? :)
[2009-05-05 22:19:10] <KTC> that was how i usually responded when i responded to email...
[2009-05-05 22:26:54] * KTC would love to read other chapter's response to the draft on chapters mailing list right now :D
[2009-05-05 22:27:04] <AndrewRT> haha
[2009-05-05 22:27:09] <AndrewRT> couldn't possibly comment!
[2009-05-05 22:28:00] <KTC> CABAL, CABAL, CABAL ?
[2009-05-05 22:29:18] <KTC> glad to see this cabal is just as bad as the last one ;D
[2009-05-05 22:29:25] <AndrewRT> yep
[2009-05-05 22:29:33] <Seddon> no KTC
[2009-05-05 22:29:35] <skenmy> silence you ex-cabal!
[2009-05-05 22:29:41] <Seddon> CABAL! CABAL! CABAL!
[2009-05-05 22:29:44] <AndrewRT> we have some new Board members remember
[2009-05-05 22:30:13] <KTC> um, you are a member of this cabal, shut up u! :D
[2009-05-05 22:30:22] <skenmy> oop
[2009-05-05 22:30:23] <skenmy> sorry
[2009-05-05 22:30:24] <skenmy> XD
[2009-05-05 22:37:30] -->| PeterSymonds (n=Peter@wikimedia/PeterSymonds) has joined #wikimedia-uk
[2009-05-05 22:40:34] |<-- KTC has left irc.freenode.net ("Leaving")
[2009-05-05 22:43:12] |<-- steve_v has left irc.freenode.net ("http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client")
[2009-05-05 22:56:31] |<-- cfp has left irc.freenode.net ()