Minutes 2008-11-04/IRC

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Nov 04 20:30:26 <cfp>	anyway shall we begin?
Nov 04 20:30:32 <KTC>	right, let's start :)
Nov 04 20:30:42 *	KTC open the right pages on browser
Nov 04 20:30:54 <KTC>	I have an apology for absence from Andrew
Nov 04 20:31:24 <KTC>	3. there's a proposed correction from andrew on the minute of 10-21
Nov 04 20:31:35 <cfp>	yeah. though he's said he's ok with us making decisions, we should try to avoid acting on them until we're sure he's ok with them.
Nov 04 20:31:40 <Warofdreams>	and, in case anyone hasn't seen, he has left his comments for the meeting at [[Talk:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Board meetings/2008-11-04/Agenda]]
Nov 04 20:32:01 <mpeel>	I support his correction - the action should have been on him, not me.
Nov 04 20:32:10 <Warofdreams>	great - I'll change it
Nov 04 20:32:31 <KTC>	any other correction to either minute?
Nov 04 20:32:40 <mpeel>	no
Nov 04 20:32:42 <cfp>	nope.
Nov 04 20:32:59 <Warofdreams>	no
Nov 04 20:33:02 <KTC>	please minute a thanks to andrew for doing the derby meeting minute
Nov 04 20:33:37 <KTC>	5.1 It has since been send round to uk-, thanks to all involved :)
Nov 04 20:33:43 <Warofdreams>	will do.
Nov 04 20:34:02 <cfp>	yup i second both of those thanks.
Nov 04 20:35:06 <cfp>	5.2 is in progress from andrew's message. we're still waiting for a response.
Nov 04 20:35:29 <KTC>	5.3 refer to 7 later on
Nov 04 20:35:49 <KTC>	5.4 
Nov 04 20:35:56 <cfp>	ok 5.4 is me. you should all have got my draft forms
Nov 04 20:36:01 <KTC>	*nod*
Nov 04 20:36:06 <cfp>	any comments/criticisms/complaints?
Nov 04 20:36:39 <Warofdreams>	must admit I haven't looked at it yet.  am opening it now
Nov 04 20:36:40 <cfp>	has anyone tried them in anything other than excel 2007
Nov 04 20:36:51 <cfp>	(in which it was created)
Nov 04 20:37:00 <mpeel>	presumably it needs to be printed out, signed, and mailed to you?
Nov 04 20:37:08 <Warofdreams>	am trying opening it in GoogleDocs right now
Nov 04 20:37:22 <KTC>	didn't u send round 4 different format version?
Nov 04 20:37:22 <cfp>	well it's best filled in in a spreadsheet editor
Nov 04 20:37:33 <cfp>	yeah. i'd only tried the excel 2007 one though.
Nov 04 20:37:49 <cfp>	the rest were just made with converters.
Nov 04 20:37:53 <cfp>	they should all be fine though.
Nov 04 20:38:00 <mpeel>	it would be nice if the PDF version a) was in black rather than blue to save colour ink, and b) left gaps rather than entering default values (e.g. £0.00)
Nov 04 20:38:14 <KTC>	i can always convert to pdf again if the current pdf version doesn't work (is looking now)
Nov 04 20:38:50 <mpeel>	They should probably also mention "Wiki UK Limited" somewhere on them, and say where they should be sent to.
Nov 04 20:38:53 <KTC>	mpeel, u can just print it off in a black & white printer / setting ;)
Nov 04 20:39:15 <mpeel>	true. I'm just a bit lazy when it comes to printer settings. ;-)
Nov 04 20:39:22 <cfp>	ahh i set it to leave space for someone to print their name at the bottom, i guess i forgot the default values.
Nov 04 20:39:52 <cfp>	but i recommend you use one of the other versions as they will provide drop down lists of options, and validate it's all fine.
Nov 04 20:40:16 <cfp>	who should sign off on people's expense claims? any other board member? the entire board?
Nov 04 20:40:20 <Warofdreams>	it's opened fine in GoogleDocs, but seems to be offering me £3 a mile, rather than 30p
Nov 04 20:40:25 <KTC>	:D
Nov 04 20:40:40 <mpeel>	the price per mile hasn't been agreed on, has it?
Nov 04 20:41:06 <cfp>	no it hasn't. it's set at £3 per mile walking, £1 cycling and 40p by car at the moment
Nov 04 20:41:10 <KTC>	my email is on linux comp, i'll need to send it over to windows before i can try the excel versions
Nov 04 20:41:21 <KTC>	um, walking?
Nov 04 20:41:25 <cfp>	the odf version should be fine on linux.
Nov 04 20:41:32 <KTC>	& cycling for that matter?
Nov 04 20:41:41 <cfp>	well there are some journeys where people can either walk/cycle or take a taxi
Nov 04 20:41:52 <Warofdreams>	why not 40p/mile by car or cycle?
Nov 04 20:42:05 <Warofdreams>	is it really more costly to cycle or walk?
Nov 04 20:42:07 <cfp>	my old work place used to incentivise people to not take taxis for short journeys by paying for walking.
Nov 04 20:42:08 <KTC>	the point is, it's suppose to be expense
Nov 04 20:42:19 <KTC>	if you walk, then there were any monetry expense
Nov 04 20:42:42 <Warofdreams>	I can understand offering some payment for cycling, to cover wear and tear, etc, but 40p/mile should be plenty
Nov 04 20:42:59 <cfp>	ok it's up to you guys.
Nov 04 20:43:22 <cfp>	it's just an incentives issue.
Nov 04 20:43:36 <KTC>	i don't mind incentives, i just don't think u can do that in a charity
Nov 04 20:43:41 <KTC>	as it doesn't support the objectives
Nov 04 20:44:14 <cfp>	well you're effectively paying people for their time. but it's no problem to remove it.
Nov 04 20:44:53 <KTC>	mpeel, Warofdreams ?
Nov 04 20:45:00 <mpeel>	yes?
Nov 04 20:45:17 <Warofdreams>	I say remove payment for walking, and pay the same for car or cycle - 40p/mile looks good.
Nov 04 20:45:18 <cfp>	the current suggestion is 40p/mile for both car and cycle
Nov 04 20:45:30 <cfp>	all happy with that?
Nov 04 20:45:41 <KTC>	*nod*
Nov 04 20:45:58 <mpeel>	The standard with mileage claims is 40p/mile for the first so-many miles, then down to 20p/mile.
Nov 04 20:46:21 <mpeel>	the reason being the 40p/mile bit covers things like insurance as well, which are generally paid by the time you go to 20p/mile.
Nov 04 20:46:21 <cfp>	the st. andrew's claim form i looked at didn't have that
Nov 04 20:46:48 <mpeel>	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/mileage/volunteer-drivers.htm
Nov 04 20:46:55 <mpeel>	On the first 10,000 miles in the tax year - 40p
Nov 04 20:46:55 <mpeel>	On each mile over 10,000 miles in the tax year - 25p
Nov 04 20:47:11 <mpeel>	that's not entirely related, but was the first example Google could find.
Nov 04 20:47:25 <cfp>	ok well shall we assume that no one will be driving more than 10k miles...
Nov 04 20:47:29 <mpeel>	I would be rather worried if any board member drove that much for the charity, though, so perhaps this is a moot point. :)
Nov 04 20:47:36 <KTC>	yep
Nov 04 20:47:42 <Warofdreams>	yes
Nov 04 20:48:15 <mpeel>	ok, please disregard that.
Nov 04 20:48:23 <mpeel>	I'm fine with 40p/mile for both car and cycle.
Nov 04 20:49:16 <KTC>	okay, next ?
Nov 04 20:49:26 <KTC>	5.5 bank account. cfp ?
Nov 04 20:49:31 <KTC>	(u added it in)
Nov 04 20:49:51 <cfp>	sorry one more thing on the expense claim form
Nov 04 20:49:55 <KTC>	ok
Nov 04 20:50:01 <cfp>	as i said above, who should be authorising expenses?
Nov 04 20:50:07 <cfp>	the entire board? just the treasurer?
Nov 04 20:50:11 <cfp>	another board member?
Nov 04 20:50:29 <mpeel>	I would suggest treasurer and/or chair
Nov 04 20:51:20 <mpeel>	reason for putting the chair in that comment: there might be times when expenses need to be authorised but the treasurer is unavailable.
Nov 04 20:51:24 <KTC>	there should be no problem with one person approving it given a written expenses policy
Nov 04 20:51:51 <cfp>	ok we're all happy with that? i expect with the proviso that the treasurer can't approve the treasurer's own expenses?
Nov 04 20:51:52 <Warofdreams>	I suggest treasurer and/or chair up to a set limit, then treasurer and/or chair and one other board member above that amount
Nov 04 20:52:25 <cfp>	£100 ?
Nov 04 20:52:27 <mpeel>	cfp: good point. Same should apply for the chair.
Nov 04 20:52:56 <Warofdreams>	£100, or perhaps more.  It should be a large enough amount that we won't frequently be spending it
Nov 04 20:53:24 <mpeel>	£100 should be fine to start with - we can always increase that later if it becomes an issue.
Nov 04 20:53:26 <Warofdreams>	MP: yes, I agree
Nov 04 20:53:35 <cfp>	ok. i'll do the forms on that basis.
Nov 04 20:53:44 <cfp>	everyone ok to move on to 5.5?
Nov 04 20:54:00 <mpeel>	do we want to have some sort of expenses guideline somewhere, e.g. on-wiki?
Nov 04 20:54:15 <cfp>	yeah i could knock that up.
Nov 04 20:54:29 <cfp>	or just make the forms sufficiently self explanatory
Nov 04 20:55:05 <mpeel>	I'd assume that people will be using the PDF version, rather than the all-singing-all-dancing excel version...
Nov 04 20:55:22 <Warofdreams>	why? I like the Excel version
Nov 04 20:55:47 <mpeel>	I should have said "some people".
Nov 04 20:56:00 <mpeel>	I'll probably use the PDF version, as I use a mac, and I don't have Office.
Nov 04 20:56:01 <cfp>	the excel version is probably the most convenient for everyone. you e-mail me the excel version and at the next meeting the relevant people can sign it.
Nov 04 20:56:07 <cfp>	i'll print it out.
Nov 04 20:56:14 <cfp>	well there's an open office version...
Nov 04 20:56:17 <mpeel>	OpenOffice is rather clunky on a mac.
Nov 04 20:56:24 *	wknight8111 has quit (Client Quit)
Nov 04 20:56:32 <cfp>	but i'll make the pdf version usable.
Nov 04 20:57:01 <KTC>	5.5 ?
Nov 04 20:57:23 <cfp>	we have 3 main options as i see it
Nov 04 20:57:29 <cfp>	coop, nationwide and hsbc
Nov 04 20:57:40 <cfp>	hsbc are the only bank whose shares have survived the last year
Nov 04 20:58:08 <cfp>	coop and nationwide weren't too affected by this nonsense either
Nov 04 20:58:08 <KTC>	um, nationwide doesn't really do an appropriate account
Nov 04 20:58:20 <cfp>	yeah they do their treasurer's trust one.
Nov 04 20:58:26 <KTC>	i had a pack from barclays
Nov 04 20:58:30 <KTC>	(somewhere)
Nov 04 20:58:33 <Warofdreams>	please not coop.  I've dealt with a business account through them before, and they are very frustrating
Nov 04 20:58:46 <cfp>	really? they were going to be my strong suggestion
Nov 04 20:58:50 <Warofdreams>	also, there aren't many coop branches, which might be an issue
Nov 04 20:59:15 <cfp>	they'll give us internet and telephone banking though
Nov 04 20:59:16 <Warofdreams>	well, I'm not the treasurer, so on your own head be it ;)
Nov 04 20:59:23 <cfp>	and there are quite a few coop branches.
Nov 04 20:59:32 <cfp>	nationwide have the advantage of paying interest
Nov 04 20:59:37 <KTC>	the numbers really depend on where u r, but it's okay
Nov 04 20:59:40 <mpeel>	Treasurer's Trust state that "This account is not available to small businesses" - would that not include us prior to obtaining charity status?
Nov 04 20:59:46 <cfp>	but they're quite limited on the accounting options
Nov 04 20:59:54 <cfp>	no we're a charity already.
Nov 04 21:00:05 <mpeel>	we are?
Nov 04 21:00:12 <cfp>	it's the AoA and MoA that make you a charity
Nov 04 21:00:28 <cfp>	i spoke to someone from the nationwide and they said we'd be fine.
Nov 04 21:00:45 <cfp>	remember all we're applying for from hmrc is to not be taxed
Nov 04 21:01:13 <mpeel>	I thought that it was the application to the charity commission that made us into a charity, officially.
Nov 04 21:01:52 <cfp>	we're not applying to the charity commission.
Nov 04 21:02:03 <cfp>	at least not until we're earning some income
Nov 04 21:02:06 <mpeel>	I know, but WMUK2 at some point will do.
Nov 04 21:02:35 <cfp>	but anyway, this is by the by, i've had explicit confirmation from someone in the oxford nationwide branch that we'd qualify
Nov 04 21:02:40 <mpeel>	ok.
Nov 04 21:02:53 <cfp>	however despite that, i still think we'd be better off with the coop account.
Nov 04 21:03:31 <KTC>	i have no problem with coop personally
Nov 04 21:03:40 <cfp>	(re: barclays, see this http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=BARC.L&t=1y that's enough of a fall for us to have a legitimate worry)
Nov 04 21:03:42 <KTC>	but there were concern from Warofdreams 
Nov 04 21:04:14 <Warofdreams>	I'm sure they will do the job.  It's just that I had frequent contact with them in my previous job
Nov 04 21:04:20 <KTC>	we are not buying its shares, we need only concern ourself with whether we believe they will survive
Nov 04 21:04:50 <Warofdreams>	where they held our current account, and the difficulty in, for example, getting them to send out the correct form, was sometimes quite significant
Nov 04 21:05:01 <KTC>	and given HM government recent moves & barclays recent fund raising, there's no reason to think they will not
Nov 04 21:05:02 <cfp>	yes but the share price is indicative of that
Nov 04 21:05:27 <Warofdreams>	particularly as branches do not generally deal with business matters directly (other than taking cash and cheques over the counter)
Nov 04 21:05:39 <cfp>	i don't expect them not to, but there's scope for worry. and there's also scope for worrying about how sensible they are with money in general.
Nov 04 21:06:14 <cfp>	yes that's true they don't. but they offer telephone and internet banking.
Nov 04 21:06:37 <KTC>	the probelm i see is whichever bank / building soc one name, there will probably be someone who have had bad expereince with it
Nov 04 21:06:39 <cfp>	which is perhaps even more useful than having in branch banking
Nov 04 21:07:57 <KTC>	so, do we have any suggestion / proposal on this ?
Nov 04 21:08:43 <cfp>	well it's a fairly important issue so it would be good to have some consensus behind the choice
Nov 04 21:09:00 <cfp>	the coop is still my preferred choice
Nov 04 21:09:06 <mpeel>	which bank account type would it be with the coop (and HSBC)?
Nov 04 21:09:17 <cfp>	http://www.co-operativebank.co.uk/servlet/Satellite/1196151412581,CFSweb/Page/Business-CommunityBanking
Nov 04 21:10:14 <cfp>	http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/business/accounts/community-account;jsessionid=0000lLV3CkAlDOLfQDTtP9n6X11:11j74l29q
Nov 04 21:11:26 <cfp>	though we may have some difficulties getting the community account from hsbc immediately. (their small business account is basically the same though)
Nov 04 21:12:06 <cfp>	i guess i'm reasonably confident we could get the hsbc community account now, but if we opted for hsbc and it turned out we couldn't we might want to reconsider at that point
Nov 04 21:12:39 <KTC>	i'm not conviced i can open a business account with hsbc at this moment in time for personal reason
Nov 04 21:12:58 <KTC>	community account prob ok
Nov 04 21:13:26 <cfp>	please tell me that's no the kind of "personal reason" that stopped wmuk 1 ever opening a bank account...
Nov 04 21:13:36 <KTC>	no
Nov 04 21:13:41 <cfp>	good good
Nov 04 21:13:47 <KTC>	well, as far as i can tell from what those reasons were
Nov 04 21:14:00 <cfp>	right. but your credit rating is ok?
Nov 04 21:14:40 <KTC>	the problem they had as far as we were aware was one of them is a discharaged bankrupt or similar
Nov 04 21:14:43 <KTC>	i'm not
Nov 04 21:15:30 <KTC>	with credit rating, if they're asking for prove of who you are etc. as was discussed before, it's obviously fine
Nov 04 21:15:39 <KTC>	if it's borrowing money, *shrug*
Nov 04 21:15:46 <KTC>	but we're not borrowing money
Nov 04 21:16:09 <KTC>	i haven't looked at a copy of my credit report recently
Nov 04 21:16:44 <cfp>	right. well the impression i get is that all big banks do carry out credit checks on board members, even without an overdraft
Nov 04 21:16:53 <cfp>	nationwide certainly don't.
Nov 04 21:16:59 <cfp>	i'm not sure about the coop.
Nov 04 21:17:13 <KTC>	i know that, but there are different type of checks they do depending on what you're wanting
Nov 04 21:17:57 <cfp>	yeah sure. ok well thanks for bringing up the fact that there might be some problem around your status.
Nov 04 21:18:31 <cfp>	my suggestion is that we try the co-op, if we're rejected we then rediscuss, with nationwide as a prior preferred option
Nov 04 21:19:03 <mpeel>	do we need to decide on a bank today?
Nov 04 21:19:27 <mpeel>	considering we can't open one until we hear back from Company's House
Nov 04 21:20:06 <cfp>	true. but if we reached a decision now i could start filling in paper work etc.
Nov 04 21:20:12 <cfp>	there's quite a bit of it.
Nov 04 21:20:23 <cfp>	and it would mean we could act as soon as we heard back.
Nov 04 21:20:41 <cfp>	choosing not to decide now is certainly an option. ktc/wod?
Nov 04 21:20:48 <mpeel>	OK. I'm just wary that Andrew might have useful comments to make.
Nov 04 21:21:18 <KTC>	can i propose cfp have a look at all the requirement from co-op, get all the forms etc.
Nov 04 21:21:25 <KTC>	and wait to see if andrew have anything to say
Nov 04 21:21:46 <Warofdreams>	KTC: I like that proposal.  We should make a final decision at the next meeting.
Nov 04 21:22:27 <cfp>	right. well the forms are all available online. can i understand this as a provisional agreement on the coop, subject to andrew's comments
Nov 04 21:22:36 <mpeel>	I also like that proposal - it also allows the people on the mailing list to make any comments they want to as well.
Nov 04 21:22:38 <cfp>	e.g. enough of an agreement to justify me starting work filling the form
Nov 04 21:22:57 <cfp>	right
Nov 04 21:24:04 <mpeel>	I'm provisionally happy with the coop.
Nov 04 21:24:05 <KTC>	cfp, can you confirm with them who is named on the application, what information are required from those people, what checks they do on those people etc.
Nov 04 21:24:37 <Warofdreams>	While I wouldn't choose the coop, I'm sure that they will be acceptable
Nov 04 21:25:17 <cfp>	yes ok. (i'll answer all but the last of those questions in a min as the discussion here continues)
Nov 04 21:25:58 <KTC>	anything else on this ?
Nov 04 21:26:14 <cfp>	not from me
Nov 04 21:26:29 <Warofdreams>	not from me
Nov 04 21:26:33 <mpeel>	nor me
Nov 04 21:26:59 <KTC>	5.6 & 5.7 Andrew have emailed chapcom, and yet to receive reply
Nov 04 21:27:21 <KTC>	6. timetable
Nov 04 21:27:36 <KTC>	any suggestion for change, or just leave as it is for now
Nov 04 21:28:03 <Warofdreams>	I suggest we leave as is for now and review again next week
Nov 04 21:28:40 <Warofdreams>	when hopefully we will have more idea of progress on what we've submitted
Nov 04 21:28:59 <KTC>	7. membership then if cfp & mpeel is okay 
Nov 04 21:29:20 <mpeel>	leave as is - I don't think we have any better idea of the dates that are achievable than is on there at the moment.
Nov 04 21:29:35 <KTC>	thanks for the initial draft, and all the comments so far
Nov 04 21:29:59 <cfp>	yeah i like the initial draft as well
Nov 04 21:30:09 <cfp>	andrew doesn't seem to though from his comments
Nov 04 21:30:43 <mpeel>	I've updated the draft based on comments to the mailing list, with the exception of membership fees.
Nov 04 21:31:06 <mpeel>	there were some initial problems with the way it was written, which Andrew commented on and I think I've fixed.
Nov 04 21:31:41 <mpeel>	mainly due to me confusing membership requirements with directorship requirements.
Nov 04 21:32:00 <mpeel>	apart from membership fees, does anyone have any comments on the page as it currently stands?
Nov 04 21:32:28 <cfp>	nope. i like it.
Nov 04 21:32:37 <cfp>	should we discuss membership fees though?>
Nov 04 21:32:44 <Warofdreams>	I'm happy with it, other than membership fees, which I'm unsure about
Nov 04 21:33:06 <mpeel>	If KTC's happy, then I suggest we discuss membership fees now...
Nov 04 21:33:14 <KTC>	let's discuss fees
Nov 04 21:33:34 <mpeel>	we have several options that have been proposed...
Nov 04 21:33:43 <mpeel>	1) no fees until the next AGM
Nov 04 21:33:59 <mpeel>	2) charge a fixed fee from the start, for 1 year's membership
Nov 04 21:34:14 <mpeel>	3) charge a minimum fee, with a recommended higher value, as per AndrewRT's suggestion
Nov 04 21:34:27 <mpeel>	4) charge a fixed fee for membership until the next AGM
Nov 04 21:34:59 <mpeel>	#2 was the one that people on the mailing list were in favour of.
Nov 04 21:35:08 <mpeel>	although #3 hasn't been mentioned on the mailing list yet.
Nov 04 21:35:25 <KTC>	i thought #3 was mentioned, just not commented upon 
Nov 04 21:35:44 <KTC>	um nvm
Nov 04 21:35:52 <KTC>	i read it on the talk page from andrew
Nov 04 21:35:58 <KTC>	knew i read it somewhere ;)
Nov 04 21:36:07 <Warofdreams>	#1 or #2 seem the most obvious options
Nov 04 21:36:26 <Warofdreams>	what is the advantage of having to get everyone to renew at the AGM, or immediately after?
Nov 04 21:36:56 <mpeel>	it lets the next board decide on the membership rate
Nov 04 21:37:17 <mpeel>	I was also initially proposing that we have a fixed term for membership - e.g. Jan to December - but people don't seem to be in favour of that.
Nov 04 21:37:17 <KTC>	there's nothing stopping the next board adjusting it
Nov 04 21:37:23 <Warofdreams>	AndrewRT's suggestion is fine so far as it goes, but I suspect that quite a lot of people will pay the minimum or a lower amount
Nov 04 21:37:35 <cfp>	i don't like #3 as it relies on guilt which is rather unreliable
Nov 04 21:37:57 <cfp>	i'm happy to have a lower rate for unwaged people if that's what people want
Nov 04 21:38:07 <cfp>	but a low fixed fee is probably easier
Nov 04 21:38:19 <cfp>	however option 1 is still my preferred one.
Nov 04 21:39:34 <Warofdreams>	the problems with a fixed term for membership are: a lot of work for the membership secretary at one time of year
Nov 04 21:40:08 <Warofdreams>	and a reluctance for people to pay full price for less than 12 months membership (although there could be discounts/extended periods for new members)
Nov 04 21:40:42 <cfp>	but on the converse, because it's all batched it's maybe easier to ensure it happens in a reasonable time frame (you can plan for it) and it probably takes less time in total
Nov 04 21:40:58 <mpeel>	both of those are true - although I would note that doing it all at once reduces the amount of time spent over the whole year, and it's easier to remember to do it.
Nov 04 21:41:17 <mpeel>	there are charities that adopt this, and seem to do well out of it - for example the National Trust.
Nov 04 21:41:46 <Warofdreams>	yes, it really depends on the work schedule of the membership officer - do they have some time to do it, spread throughout the year, or would they rather take a week or two off to process them all in a batch?
Nov 04 21:43:19 <Warofdreams>	of course, if we can set up direct debits for most members and a online sign-up option, it might not be all that much work, even when we have several hundred members
Nov 04 21:43:31 <mpeel>	Personally, I'm fine either way, although I would expect that spreading it out over the course of the year would be easiest for most people.
Nov 04 21:45:02 <mpeel>	OK, let's not go for a fixed term for membership. Back to fees?
Nov 04 21:45:10 <Warofdreams>	ok with me.
Nov 04 21:45:23 <mpeel>	cfp, KTC?
Nov 04 21:46:26 <Warofdreams>	*cough*
Nov 04 21:46:39 <cfp>	sorry
Nov 04 21:46:51 <KTC>	i really really have no preference with individual yearly, or fixed year end
Nov 04 21:46:52 <cfp>	yes i agree, spread it out
Nov 04 21:46:53 <cfp>	fees
Nov 04 21:46:58 <KTC>	so fees
Nov 04 21:47:27 <KTC>	if spread out is what people are happy with, good ;)
Nov 04 21:47:29 <KTC>	* :)
Nov 04 21:47:31 <KTC>	fees?
Nov 04 21:47:35 <mpeel>	what's people's preference with fees, and why?
Nov 04 21:48:33 <mpeel>	Mine is #2: it gives us some money to work with, e.g. for the AGM, and gets people used to paying something from the start. It also seems to be the preference of the mailing list (i.e. Tango42 and Geni)
Nov 04 21:48:44 <Warofdreams>	mine is also #2
Nov 04 21:49:22 <KTC>	#2 had been my preference from last meeting as it will definitely give a working amount of money (assuming people join)
Nov 04 21:49:35 <Warofdreams>	I think we need to be careful not to set membership fees too high.  We should aim for the broadest possible membership base, and while it is great that some people commenting on the discussion list would be happy to pay £20+
Nov 04 21:49:37 <KTC>	without relying on possible donation early on
Nov 04 21:49:41 <cfp>	mine is #1 because i think it's beyond our remit as an interim board.
Nov 04 21:49:58 <cfp>	and because it may aversely affect access to the first agm
Nov 04 21:50:04 <Warofdreams>	they are not the only people we want as members
Nov 04 21:50:19 <cfp>	e.g. it will disuade people who can't afford/don't want to pay whatever
Nov 04 21:50:32 <cfp>	who otherwise would have had the opportunity to argue for a low fee in the agm itself
Nov 04 21:50:55 <cfp>	it's a little dangerous to be potentially disenfranchising our membership at this stage.
Nov 04 21:51:18 <Warofdreams>	incidentally, whatever we decide, we should have a prominent space on the membership form where people can make an additional donation
Nov 04 21:51:29 <cfp>	yeah sure.
Nov 04 21:51:54 <mpeel>	good idea - will add that to the page.
Nov 04 21:51:58 <KTC>	i will aruge it's a bigger issue if we can't host the AGM if we can't get a room for free
Nov 04 21:52:32 <KTC>	we will and is letting people commet on the mailing list
Nov 04 21:52:43 <KTC>	if they feel it's too high etc.
Nov 04 21:53:00 <KTC>	we are not waiting until the AGM to let them voice their thoughts
Nov 04 21:53:11 <mpeel>	we could also send around a note to everyone that's shown an interest, to get their opinion on the value.
Nov 04 21:54:26 <Warofdreams>	that sounds a good idea to me; those commenting on the discussion list are probably more keen than some others
Nov 04 21:54:35 <cfp>	look i really don't think we'll have any difficulties getting a room for free. a lot of pubs even have rooms they gladly reserve
Nov 04 21:55:42 <cfp>	i'm happy to have a membership fee at this stage if everyone else is set on it, but for the moment at least i don't think it's necessary and hence can only have negative implications.
Nov 04 21:56:04 <Warofdreams>	I'm sure we can find *something* for free, but perhaps not something ideally suited
Nov 04 21:56:34 <KTC>	i'll take the proposal that we should get more comments & thoughts on this from the community
Nov 04 21:56:50 <KTC>	as we're not in a hurry to decide this
Nov 04 21:56:50 <cfp>	well getting a seminar room in a university shouldn't be too hard either.
Nov 04 21:56:57 <cfp>	involving the community sounds sensible
Nov 04 21:57:16 <Warofdreams>	yes, shall we review in maybe two weeks?
Nov 04 21:57:32 <KTC>	who want to contact all who have express an interest so far?
Nov 04 21:57:37 <KTC>	on wiki
Nov 04 21:57:42 <mpeel>	I'll do that.
Nov 04 21:57:55 <KTC>	one week, two week, whatever
Nov 04 21:58:03 <KTC>	whenever we get some comments :0
Nov 04 21:58:05 <KTC>	* :)
Nov 04 21:58:08 <Warofdreams>	:)
Nov 04 21:58:15 <mpeel>	let's at least briefly discuss this again next week, so we don't forget about it.
Nov 04 21:58:25 <KTC>	right, newsletter ?
Nov 04 21:58:34 <mpeel>	one last thing with membership...
Nov 04 21:58:38 <KTC>	ok
Nov 04 21:59:16 <mpeel>	should member's Wikimedia foundation username only be used for generic messages that are sent to everyone, or can it also be used for personal messages?
Nov 04 21:59:29 <mpeel>	by personal messages, I mean e.g. membership renewal reminders.
Nov 04 22:00:14 <Warofdreams>	what arguments are there against using it for any and all messages?
Nov 04 22:00:19 <KTC>	it's public
Nov 04 22:00:27 <mpeel>	I'm meaning talk pages here.
Nov 04 22:00:32 <cfp>	and it's not necessarily checked that regularly
Nov 04 22:00:37 <cfp>	and it may not even exist.
Nov 04 22:00:49 <cfp>	email is the sensible principal mode of communication.
Nov 04 22:01:45 <mpeel>	do we even need usernames, if we use emails (and make that a required detail)?
Nov 04 22:02:54 <cfp>	i think we might even be better off at least pretending that we don't know them
Nov 04 22:03:17 <cfp>	it would make the seperation between us and the projects clearer
Nov 04 22:03:44 <Warofdreams>	I like this proposal
Nov 04 22:04:17 <KTC>	fine with me
Nov 04 22:04:27 <mpeel>	are we OK with requiring email addresses?
Nov 04 22:04:55 <KTC>	i'm not too sure about requiring email and then only to use email (pretty much)
Nov 04 22:05:13 <KTC>	as we might be taking orginisation (sp) member
Nov 04 22:05:28 <KTC>	who might want notices etc. snail mail it to them
Nov 04 22:05:36 <KTC>	(even in this day and age yes)
Nov 04 22:06:01 <cfp>	well perhaps we make it optional but say that if it's provided it will be used in preference?
Nov 04 22:06:11 <KTC>	sure
Nov 04 22:06:20 <cfp>	snail mail is expensive and time consuming for us, so we want to minimise the amount of it we need
Nov 04 22:06:41 <Warofdreams>	orgs should still provide an e-mail; we don't want to send every piece of info by post
Nov 04 22:07:10 <Warofdreams>	nor do we want them to miss out on info because they don't have an e-mail registered with us
Nov 04 22:07:12 <KTC>	there's a difference between should/would probably and requireing them to
Nov 04 22:07:36 <mpeel>	How's the following:
Nov 04 22:07:38 <mpeel>	Details required on the Application Form for guarantor membership will be:
Nov 04 22:07:38 <mpeel>	    * Full name (required)
Nov 04 22:07:39 <mpeel>	    * Full address, including postcode (required)
Nov 04 22:07:39 <mpeel>	    * Country of residence (required)
Nov 04 22:07:39 <mpeel>	    * Email address (optional; if provided then will be used as the main method of contact unless instructed otherwise)
Nov 04 22:07:40 <mpeel>	    * Checkbox to state whether the applicant is over 18
Nov 04 22:07:42 <mpeel>	    * Signature and date (required)
Nov 04 22:07:44 <mpeel>	    * If under 18, then signature of parent or guardian (required if under 18)
Nov 04 22:07:46 <mpeel>	There will also be the space for people to make additional donations to WMUK2.
Nov 04 22:08:12 <KTC>	look fine to me
Nov 04 22:08:19 <Warofdreams>	I'd say at least * Email address (strongly recommended; if not provided, then selected mailings will be sent by post)
Nov 04 22:08:25 <Warofdreams>	or similar
Nov 04 22:09:35 <Warofdreams>	I think we need to make it clear that by not providing an e-mail address, a person or org will miss out on the more regular communication
Nov 04 22:09:35 <cfp>	yeah that sounds sensible.
Nov 04 22:10:12 <mpeel>	How about: * Email address (optional but strongly recommended; if not provided, selected mailings will be sent by post)
Nov 04 22:10:30 <Warofdreams>	that's fine with me
Nov 04 22:11:03 <mpeel>	ok: I've updated the page on meta.
Nov 04 22:11:15 <mpeel>	I'm happy to move on to the newsletter now.
Nov 04 22:11:26 <KTC>	ok, newsletter
Nov 04 22:12:22 <mpeel>	The reason for bringing this up here is because we're not currently doing a terribly good job at keeping everyone that's said they're interested up to date...
Nov 04 22:12:39 <cfp>	so it's going to the user page of everyone signed up in any of the 3 lists, plus being e-mailed to the wmuk list? and the meta list? and the wiki en list??
Nov 04 22:13:21 <KTC>	i'm not sure about wiki-en
Nov 04 22:13:22 <mpeel>	My suggestion would be to have a page on meta which holds the newsletter, then send around a link to that to the lists and anyone that is on a newsletter-delivery page.
Nov 04 22:14:01 <Warofdreams>	that sounds good to me.
Nov 04 22:14:12 <cfp>	well you might as well send the actual message to the lists. would be a lot more visible. (people are lazy, they won't click links)
Nov 04 22:14:35 <cfp>	justification for sending to wiki-en would be the constant low level promotion which might help us win members
Nov 04 22:14:36 <mpeel>	that's an alternative. The problem there is with sending it to mailing list, or by email.
Nov 04 22:14:46 <cfp>	i'm not on that list though, so i don't know how appropriate it would be
Nov 04 22:15:00 <mpeel>	we could do a combination of the two, along the lines of the Signpost.
Nov 04 22:15:35 <KTC>	email message should really contain the actual content
Nov 04 22:15:36 <mpeel>	i.e. main content on meta, with a template with links to the various items put on people's talk pages.
Nov 04 22:16:40 <mpeel>	if we have it on meta, then we have more control over how it displays, and can include things like images in it - which we can't do by email.
Nov 04 22:16:43 <Warofdreams>	there is an advantage of sending a link to lists with some potentially interested people and majority for whom it's not relevant
Nov 04 22:17:21 <mpeel>	it also makes links to other pages a lot easier to do if it's on meta.
Nov 04 22:18:20 <KTC>	a summary then ?
Nov 04 22:18:34 <Warofdreams>	...and using meta makes it easier for it to be a collaborative effort
Nov 04 22:19:07 <cfp>	a summary sounds like a reasonable compromise. a reasonable proportion of the text content, none of the images etc.
Nov 04 22:19:07 <mpeel>	a summary would work well.
Nov 04 22:19:09 >cfp<	nearly press junk on your email lol. i get too much spam, i should prob spend more time looking at emails before pressing the junk button :D
Nov 04 22:19:39 <mpeel>	are we all in favour of having a newsletter?
Nov 04 22:19:49 <KTC>	sure
Nov 04 22:19:52 <Warofdreams>	yes, I am
Nov 04 22:20:02 <mpeel>	if we are, then we could start developing one on the meta, and discussing the methods of sending it around (with examples) on there.
Nov 04 22:20:03 <cfp>	yup
Nov 04 22:20:04 <KTC>	i think the question was how often and in what format
Nov 04 22:20:10 <KTC>	rather than whether to do it or not
Nov 04 22:21:04 <cfp>	around monthly?
Nov 04 22:21:08 <Warofdreams>	I agree with mpeel that it would be good to start developing something on the meta - see how it looks, and how long it takes to put together
Nov 04 22:21:22 <mpeel>	Is everyone happy with the format of having the main copy on meta, with a summary and link to main version sent around by email and delivered to people's talk pages?
Nov 04 22:21:23 <Warofdreams>	but monthly sounds like it would probably work
Nov 04 22:21:38 <mpeel>	monthly is probably a good timescale.
Nov 04 22:21:59 <KTC>	monthly sounds ok :)
Nov 04 22:22:34 <KTC>	anything else on newsletter ?
Nov 04 22:22:52 <cfp>	i'm happy with that mpeel, sounds good
Nov 04 22:23:05 <mpeel>	If people want, I can set up a bot to circulate it (and other messages) to talk pages.
Nov 04 22:23:18 <Warofdreams>	sounds good to me
Nov 04 22:23:36 <mpeel>	that requires going through the bot committee for approval, so I'd need to get started on that now if we think that's a good idea.
Nov 04 22:24:16 <cfp>	yeah that sounds sensible. keep the overhead time cost as low as possible
Nov 04 22:24:21 <KTC>	a manual started bot sure
Nov 04 22:24:35 <KTC>	i.e. the bot don't go sending half finish newsletter
Nov 04 22:24:44 <mpeel>	yes - manually started and also monitored.
Nov 04 22:25:17 <mpeel>	I'd probably reuse User:Peelbot, which did manually-started and monitored talk page banners for wikiprojects.
Nov 04 22:25:31 <mpeel>	unless people would prefer me to use a different username for it.
Nov 04 22:25:52 <KTC>	it's just a name for who deliver it
Nov 04 22:25:54 <KTC>	it's fine
Nov 04 22:25:57 <mpeel>	ok
Nov 04 22:26:44 <Warofdreams>	great, are we on to AOB?
Nov 04 22:27:09 <KTC>	yep
Nov 04 22:27:17 <cfp>	AOB: you should all have received an email
Nov 04 22:27:27 <cfp>	did it answer all your questions about the coop?
Nov 04 22:27:28 <KTC>	that i nearly send to the junk folder.. lol
Nov 04 22:27:55 <cfp>	one board member can avoid the credit check etc if they're happy to not be a signatory
Nov 04 22:28:06 <KTC>	business plan ?
Nov 04 22:29:15 <cfp>	yeah it's bizarre isn't it
Nov 04 22:29:34 <cfp>	but i guess our business plan is: start accepting donations in the next fundraising drive
Nov 04 22:29:44 <KTC>	andrew should have no problem getting certified copies given he works as an accountant and thus work with other accountant
Nov 04 22:29:45 <cfp>	spend money on: blah (that list from meta)
Nov 04 22:29:53 <mpeel>	membership fees should probably also be mentioned in the business plan: it's a revenue stream.
Nov 04 22:29:59 <cfp>	yeah.
Nov 04 22:30:27 <Warofdreams>	we should probably work up a business plan on meta
Nov 04 22:30:36 <mpeel>	plus, I guess we'd start accepting donations prior to the next fundraising drive.
Nov 04 22:30:39 <Warofdreams>	most of the info we need is there already
Nov 04 22:31:41 <cfp>	yup knocking something up on meta sounds sensible.
Nov 04 22:32:05 <cfp>	i'll allocate some time to it at the weekend if no one's made a start by then
Nov 04 22:32:52 <KTC>	okay, AOCB?
Nov 04 22:33:09 <Warofdreams>	nothing this week
Nov 04 22:33:15 <mpeel>	Does anyone know where WMUK1 are at with dissolution?
Nov 04 22:33:19 <KTC>	nope
Nov 04 22:34:01 <mpeel>	should we ask them?
Nov 04 22:34:05 <Warofdreams>	yes
Nov 04 22:34:14 <Warofdreams>	shall I ask them?
Nov 04 22:34:19 <mpeel>	I'm wary that we could start interacting, e.g. with regards the trademark, in the nearish future.
Nov 04 22:35:02 <mpeel>	I'm happy for you to ask them, Warofdreams.
Nov 04 22:35:21 <cfp>	cool
Nov 04 22:35:22 <Warofdreams>	great, I'll ask them and e-mail their reply around the board
Nov 04 22:35:32 <KTC>	cool :)
Nov 04 22:35:38 <mpeel>	also: is anyone else here on the foundation-l mailing list?
Nov 04 22:35:43 <KTC>	yes
Nov 04 22:35:46 <KTC>	why?
Nov 04 22:36:37 <mpeel>	There was discussion on there about wikimedia foundation board positions relating to chapters, which WMUK1/2 was mentioned during.
Nov 04 22:37:18 <KTC>	haven't been keeping up with the emails lately, let me have a quick scan
Nov 04 22:37:24 <mpeel>	just wanted to make sure others were keeping an eye on it, apart from the ever-active Tango42.
Nov 04 22:37:31 <cfp>	i'm on foundation-l, don't pay a lot of attention though
Nov 04 22:37:32 <KTC>	http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/
Nov 04 22:37:55 <Warofdreams>	mpeel: did anything significant which came out of the discussion?
Nov 04 22:38:28 <Warofdreams>	* did anything significant come out of the discussion?
Nov 04 22:38:33 <mpeel>	not much. Basically, because we're in a state of flux, we probably won't have much say in who becomes the board members representing chapters.
Nov 04 22:38:49 <mpeel>	they're setting up a special wiki for discussion about the positions atm.
Nov 04 22:39:03 <mpeel>	but access will probably be restricted to existing chapter board members.
Nov 04 22:39:26 <mpeel>	... those that have a signed agreement with the foundation for the trademark, as I understand it.
Nov 04 22:39:36 <mpeel>	which probably includes WMUK1, but not us.
Nov 04 22:39:41 <Warofdreams>	that sounds fair enough.  let's hope that we are soon included in that category.
Nov 04 22:41:02 <Warofdreams>	ok, date and time of next board meeting?
Nov 04 22:41:10 <KTC>	same time next week?
Nov 04 22:41:17 <Warofdreams>	good for me
Nov 04 22:41:45 <mpeel>	I would prefer a different day, as it's my sister's birthday.
Nov 04 22:42:04 <mpeel>	but I can probably make it if another day's not possible.
Nov 04 22:42:11 <cfp>	monday?
Nov 04 22:42:13 <KTC>	suggestion of a diff day?
Nov 04 22:42:19 <Warofdreams>	Monday would suit me
Nov 04 22:42:20 <mpeel>	monday is fine for me
Nov 04 22:42:40 <Warofdreams>	KTC?
Nov 04 22:42:42 <KTC>	fine
Nov 04 22:42:45 <cfp>	8:30 monday then, pending confirmation from andrew
Nov 04 22:43:03 <Warofdreams>	excellent.  For the logs, it's 22:43
Nov 04 22:43:05 <KTC>	right o, meeting close :)
Nov 04 22:43:06 <mpeel>	btw: the posts mentioned above on foundation-l relating to WMUK start with http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/046898.html
Nov 04 22:43:32 <KTC>	basically, thread subject NomCom 
Nov 04 22:43:40 <mpeel>	yup
Nov 04 22:44:12 <cfp>	k will have a look
Nov 04 22:44:42 <mpeel>	who's uploading the IRC logs onto meta?
Nov 04 22:44:48 *	KTC is doing it 
Nov 04 22:45:07 <mpeel>	ok, thanks.