Minutes 2012-10-17
These are the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee, which was held on 17 October 2012 by telephone from 7.30pm onwards.
Present:
- Jon Davies [JD]
- Mike Peel [MP] (Minutes)
- Doug Taylor [DT]
- Chris Keating [CK] (Chair)
- John Byrne [JB]
QRpedia / Monmouthpedia
Current status of agreements, how to move these forward, how to manage future developments
QRpedia
Saad has previously sent an email to Jon and Chris regarding the QRpedia agreement. The proposed next step from Saad is to send the draft to the WMF legal department. There was general agreement to work with Burges Salmon to redraft before sending it to the WMF for their viewpoint.
It was noted that there has been previous work redrafting the document that has been recorded in annotations on the Google document version of the agreement, as well as in records of previous discussions.
One approach that could be taken would be for Saad and Jon to put together a list of the key concerns with the current draft, and points that need to be added or are important to bear in mind, which would then be run past the board, Roger and Terence before working with Burgess Salmon to put together a new draft. The ideal timescale for this list would be next week.
ACTION: Jon to call Saad on 18 October to set out the QRpedia options going forward that have been discussed this evening, getting his views, and asking him to summarise his concerns with the current draft agreement and the options for going forward.
MonmouthpediA
An email has been received from MCC regarding MonmouthpediA. Jon will be talking with them by phone in the middle of November. [Redacted from public minutes - A town in South-West England] have also shown interest in being a wiki-town.
It was recognised that MonmouthpediA is parked pending further discussion with MCC and Jon.
WMF previously indicated in early September that they want to pause and assess approving further towns until the benefits of the current ones have been assessed.
ACTION: Jon to send a copy of the email from the WMF regarding wikitowns being put on hold to the Board.
Other towns have also expressed interest in being wikitowns. It was noted that Wikitowns are now controversial on wiki with some people, which would put them under a lot of scrutiny. Concerns were also raised about the impact on GLAM projects. In general, Wikitowns are now on hold pending evaluation of the effectiveness of past and current projects, which essentially means that they are paused for at least the next 3 months.
There was a small in-camera discussion here.
It was also noted that the GLAM committee met earlier today (17 October), and made good progress on WiR and Scotland.
Finance
Actions resulting from audit reports, review of performance against finance policy
The recommendations from Garfield's review break down into two parts. One is a proposal about the involvement that trustees should have in the activities of WMUK, the rest are fairly detailed things about cash flow forecasts and so forth. There is also the UHY mid-term review, which provides a number of recommendations; the 6-month review of our finance policy, looking at how they are working and how they might be changed; and the JD and JB management accounts requests.
Jon, John and Richard plan to meet to set out the detailed changes and timescales for the future. John will be in the office for 2 days next week, so the meeting will probably take place then. The one large point re Board composition to be left to see how the expert review comes out.
It is currently unclear whether we can release Garfield and UHY's reports. JD and JB are currently seeking clarity, with a desire to release them if possible.
Garfield was keen on an action plan to respond to his points, which would also impact on the financial policy.
John and Richard have been working through the finance policy, with a number of minor changes, and two that will probably need board discussion. To be discussed at the November board. John has also asked Richard for a finance policy version that is annotated as to which items are currently being followed.
Mike wrote a re-draft of the per diem policy, on the agenda for the next meeting. John to take a look and take it into consideration.
Budget responsibilities
how do we get to a better level of detail in the 2013 budget, and what interim steps do we take for the rest of 2012?
We have gained experience from this year, which will lead to more detailed budgets next year. We need to focus on the big budget lines such as GLAM to break them down some more. Recent changes to the finance policy will mean that there will be more scrutiny on changes to budget lines, which is healthy.
The part of the FDC form relating to priorities and key outcomes has been particularly helpful, in terms of thinking more about metrics and strategic goals.
Agenda for the next board meeting
discussion items (e.g. KPIs); reports and timetable for reports (financial/non-financial).
Key performance indicators
We had a paper on KPIs from Jon and the staff at the last Board meeting, which wasn't discussed owing to a lack of time. It was agreed that we will return to this as a discussion item at the next board meeting, resulting in a better sense of what is being measured. There is also the link between these KPIs and the objectives and outcomes in the Wikimedia movement. We have a board level requirement for a report card, and also have metrics in the 3/5 year plans. We can potentially use the paper from staff as the basis at the board meeting, and provide feedback/additions/subtractions, possibly also highlighting 10 key metrics to use.
Jon will send a reminder email to the board next week about KPIs. DT agreed to contribute to this. There will be a discussion slot on the agenda for this topic.
We will also need to go through the 2012 activity plan to reallocate the budget holders at the next board meeting.
Reports and report timetable
It was noted that 7th November is the deadline for staff reports, as well as being the deadline for reports from committees and trustees.
The Conference Committee will be reporting at the board meeting. [Redacted] It is expected that we will have a detailed proposal for the 7th November that sets out what has been done thus far, what will be done, and what support the Wikimania team needs from us. [Redacted].
ACTION: JD and CK to talk with Ed about the Wikimania bid
Gibraltar
DT pointed out that [a WMUK volunteer] is working in Gibraltar for the next week. A number of concerns were raised regarding this. CK summarised these concerns by saying:
ACTION: DT to talk to [this volunteer] about his involvement with Gibraltarpedia ACTION: [Redacted]
Conferences
There was good news with regards WikiConference 2013, in that there are now two options remaining, the details of which are at wmuk:WikiConference UK 2013/Venue.
Fundraising system / Technology
steps ahead; how to proceed with this in the light of us not participating in the main fundraiser, including the key tasks that we will give to our contractors
We now have two contractors. The general understanding is that Emmanuel will be doing most of the work, with Tom doing the things that Emmanuel can't do, Tom's got more experience of, or for work by Emmanuel that needs reviewing.
The currently focus is on maintenance, migrating to new server, and upgrading systems for the time being. In the longer term we need to integrate our systems more tightly.
Doug, Mike and Katherine to arrange a meeting to discuss further.
ACTION: MP to phone KB on 18 Oct to schedule a meeting between MP, KB and DT to set out the priorities of the developer contractors.
GLAM coordination
The GLAM committee met recently. It was noted that progress is happening, and there will be a report from the committee soon.
Stone King
BWB have written to us, having spoken to Mike Hudson, passing on his requests that the terms of reference should be amended to extend the timescale, tighten up the wording around community, and a requirements of law issue. Tom wrote a draft reply which covered these points. There were some wording points with the press release.
We have already adopted the terms of reference by resolution, any amendment requires an additional resolution. CK et al. have delegated responsibility for discussions surrounding the terms, and would like to see the points raised by BWB as being a matter for interpretation rather than requiring a modification to the terms.
We need to have a final terms of reference agreed by the WMF and the consultant, which can be put to a vote. John Byrne to talk to Hudson and BWB to come up with a final version of the terms of reference, which John will recommend to the Board.