Talk:WikiConference UK 2013/Archive 1

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Possible locations[edit source]

(Both venues and cities)

  • Manchester?
    • Possible venues: University of Manchester (lecture room or seminar room, or something from [1]), Mediacity (if they have large meeting rooms), Manchester Town Hall. Other options at [2].
    • I helped host an event at The Lowry with a previous employer. Really lovely venue with plenty of space, on-site catering and so on. Might be expensive though. --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Manchester University would charge ~£36 inc VAT/head, so £3,600 for 100 people, for "use of a plenary meeting room equipped with standard a/v equipment, up to three servings of teas/coffees and biscuits and lunch" - an extra 40-90 seater room would cost around ~£300. See e.g. [3] for more details.
      • Have tweeted at @MediaCityUK asking for info about possible locations there, and have contacted VisitManchester about options from them, and also the Lowry asking for their info. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
        • The Lowry have sent me a quote, which I've shared with the confcom mailing list and posted on the internal wiki. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Birmingham
  • Nottingham?
  • Edinburgh?
    • Can the charity hold the AGM outside England and Wales? Gordo (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
      • That might be useful to get advice on. I've had a quick look and can't find anything in the Companies Act or on the Charity Commission website to say either way. It's worth resolving for future reference even if not for 2013 as even if we decide to hold the event elsewhere we may want to go to Scotland in the future. LondonStatto (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Personally I favour either Birmingham or (if permissible) Edinburgh. LondonStatto (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
        • For me, the main consideration would be how we can maximise the number of members who attend. Thinking about it in this way, Birmingham seems a sensible choice - although I haven't seen data on where our members are located, it's central and certainly cheaper than London. --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • A E&W registered charity, and E&W private company (both of which applies to WMUK) are not legally required to hold an AGM unless its articles specify otherwise.[4][5] WMUK articles does require an AGM, but does not specify a limit on location. By that reading, the AGM can be held on the Moon if the company wants. Of course, there might be a problem with reaching a quorum that way. KTC (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible speakers[edit source]

(External speakers that could attract more of our members)

Just off the top of my head, and in no particular order, some organisations we've been working with who could provide speakers:

  • JISC
  • British Library
  • Imperial War Museum
  • Eurpoeana
  • Other chapters
  • Digital Disruption / Demos
  • Creative Commons

Topics we could look at:

  • Copyright
  • Education (perhaps the outcomes of EduWiki or anyone inspired by it)
  • Mature content
  • Visual editor (James Forrester?)
  • GLAM
  • Non-English native languages (Robin Owain?)
  • Projects / partnerships arising from the draft activity plan for 2013

--Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to do a session looking at the longer term vision for the chapter if possible? AndrewRT (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Venue requirements[edit source]

Here's a quick brainstorm for what we need out of the venue for the conference:

  • Venue
    • Capacity for 100 people conference-style in a main room
    • Capacity for 50 people conference-style in a separate, nearby room (for a parallel session)
    • Should be reasonable quality, but does not need to be a prestige location
  • Location
    • Should be located in the United Kingdom
    • Should be close to a major train station
    • Ideally would have on-site (or nearby) car parking available
  • Catering:
    • Tea/coffee and biscuits at the start of the day and at mid-afternoon
    • Light lunch (sandwiches, cakes) in the middle of the day
  • Technology
    • Robust wireless internet access, and ideally a reasonable number of power sockets available to attendees.
    • Digital projectors and reasonably-sized display screens (WMUK has laptops available, so these aren't needed).
    • Either in-house AV facilities, or no objections to us bringing in our own AV/webstreaming

What have I missed? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not required, but I think an idea on whether there would be on-site or partnered nearby accommodation for anyone who might arrive the previous day would also be useful. KTC (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Location decision[edit source]

The Conference Committee is currently considering location for the 2013 WikiConference UK and AGM. So far we have quotes for the following locations.

  • Birmingham x 1
  • Coventry x 1
  • Edinburgh x 1
  • Lincoln x 1
  • Manchester x 3
  • Oxford x 2-3

Do you consider that's enough to make a decision from, or do you believe the committee should gather more quotes from possibly other cities first? What do you think about the cities being considered in particular? -- KTC (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said at the GLAM-Camp, centrality & good transport are key; we don't pay travel expenses for AGMs. I think that rules out Edinburgh, especially as we have so far failed to get even meet-ups going there. That would produce a very low physical turn-out I think, which would be a pity. There are a number of other cities in the Midlands/North that are options, but I think these bids (which I haven't seen) are easily enought to be getting on with, unless another comes along by itself. There's no need to seek out more I think; there are up to 10 here. After Bristol then London a move some way north seems appropriate. Alternatively, just doing it in the office in London would work pretty well, and presumably save some money. The big basement room is large enough I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


Most of those cities are fine, though I'm a little bit surprised to see Lincoln there. The practical issue is that we need a city that is convenient for long distance trains, and a venue in that city that is very close to the train station. It would also help if the event was available via live streaming, that way one could attend without travelling. Other cities which you could consider are York, Rugby, Durham and Leeds. I'd suggest that we stick to the East Coast or West Coast Main lines. It also makes sense to rotate around the country - perhaps we could adopt a rule of each venue being an hours journey from the two previous AGMs. WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The location is what volunteers and staff have gotten quotes for. There wasn't a this is a good idea and that is a bad idea and so don't bother, except for the part that it should be a location outside of London. I would oppose that last part. We already (unofficially) alternate between London and non-London and I think that's good. I don't see why we should restrict our choice of location based on how far away it is from the previous AGMs. KTC (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
OK lets decide 2013 based on those quotes and have a separate thread for the policy re future venues. WereSpielChequers (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm coming to this discussion too late, kbut I would like to suggest Cardiff for two reasons: firstly, all AGMs so far have been on England and it would be useful to have a non-England one occasionally; secondly, Cardiff is close to Monmouth, where we have had such a successful event so a conference there would be a great follow up. Cardiff is relatively easy to get to from both London and Birmingham. AndrewRT (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Policy for 2013 and beyond[edit source]

As a Londoner I'm of course happy if everyone else is happy with a London non-London alternation. Though I think that is a little over greedy of us. My proposal of each venue being an hours journey from the two previous AGMs would be compatible with a London every third year system, which I would regard as fairer. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Well; from London it's slightly cheaper and quicker to get to Lincoln than Manchester :) Getting across country is a bit more difficult - but ultimately if we pick anywhere other than London, even on the mainlines, one half of the country faces a transport problem. I've done a lot of research into this (Lincoln is my proposal) and it's a six-and-two-threes situations. One reason I think Lincoln is an interesting option is because we haven't done a lot in that area of the country (and it is a gorgeous historical city as well, prime opportunity for an editing session). There are things happening London, Bristol, Birmingham/Conventy, Monmouth, Manchester, Leicster. So it's broadening our coverage :D I also looked at York, which is easy to get to, but I am too far away from it to organise anything. Leeds of Sheffield are possible options where I also have links, but Lincoln was easiest :D I think moving forward we should list some sort of decision criteria for picking a venue, then just get some shortlisted. --ErrantX (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
If Lincoln is cheaper and quicker from London than Manchester is then I apologise to the people of Lincoln for maligning them. I think that we, and myself in particular have drifted from discussuing 2013 to discussing our general criteria. We need to have that discussion, and I doubt it will be too difficult to get some sort of consensus. If we do London every third year and each anywhere other than London venue is at least an hour from the previous non-London venue then we will get an element of rotation round the country.But we also need things like proximity to public transport, cost, accessibility for the disabled, and how close the venue is to the mainline station. WereSpielChequers (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I live in Nottingham and I'm afraid I also support the London/non-London rotation as London is easier for me to get to than nearly any other city in the UK. Also, the south-east is where most of the population lives - see here AndrewRT (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice image, but I'd say that it shows the Midlands and the North combined as bigger than London, and the centre of gravity would still be in B'ham. Of course our membership may have a different skew. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

lincoln or Manchester[edit source]

I gather we have a shortlist of two. Can we have info as to the respective costs and distances from stations? If both are equally accessible I'd suggest going for the cheaper one. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, we have a shortlist of two cities, not two venues. We need to make venues visit first to make sure our expectation of what we'll be getting matches reality. That ought to happen in the next couple of weeks. After that we can certainly follow your suggestion if all else is equal. KTC (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hustings[edit source]

I have a few worries about having a short hustings. We're expecting some fantastic candidates this year and I want to ensure that people have enough time for:

a. a longer speech than last year
b. time for questions.

Does anyone (ideally lay members) have any views on how long this should be? We'll be electing to four seats, which might mean 8 candidates - although we had 17 last year. I've lengthened the half hour to 45 minutes, and changed it from 'speeches' to 'speeches and questions'. It may be that the community pre-decide questions to ask (eg "what experience do you have from outside the movement to bring to the board") etc. Does anyone else have views? Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • At this stage I'd be surprised if we had much idea of the maximum number of candidates standing, but I wouldn't assume that electing half the board each year halved the number of candidates. Obviously there will be three or four sitting members who aren't up this year but that won't thin the field from 17 to 8. I'd suggest having a presentation or two with provisional slots and confirm them or otherwise as we know the number of candidates. We have had a controversial year and people will want to scrutinise the candidates, especially those who they think might win. We've had more than one controversial issue so these should be unusually interesting hustings. So my suggestion would be to allow a certain amount of time per candidate, and a certain amount of time per current controversy, though a wiki based Q&A forum might enable part of the hustings to be done online and in advance. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It's very difficult to decide on the time to allocate to hustings without knowing how many candidates there will be, and that's very difficult to predict. I would rather not have predetermined questions at the hustings - questions can be asked in advance online. Questions at the hustings should be a little more spontaneous (either spontaneous questions based on what people have already said, or spontaneous answers to questions where someone wants to see how people think on their feet). I would keep speeches to a minimum - candidates will have already made written statements. They should just highlight the key points in their speech, not repeat the whole thing. --Tango (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
(Yay, I can comment on this as I'm not standing for election this time around. :-) )
I agree with Tango that keeping speeches to a minimum would be good, to maximise the time for questions. I'm conscious that not everyone might have read the on-wiki statements online, though, so perhaps printed copies of those can be made available? The question time should scale naturally regardless of the number of candidates - more candidates simply means less questions are asked. It would be good if we could figure out a way of structuring the Q&A such that it doesn't result in every person being asked the same question (which leads to 'I agree with XX' responses) but doesn't put too much focus on individuals... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see it given a full hour, if not a little longer, if there are enough candidates and there's enough to discuss. I think Tango and Mike both make good suggestions about limiting time for speeches and providing printed copies of statements so we can maximise the time for questions. It's important that members feel they've been given enough information about candidates and that they've had enough time to ask anything they think is important. I (personally) would also like to see a greater emphasis on the skills and experience candidates bring, as I think electorates have a tendency to vote for people they know. While those trustees who were well known as members of the movement before their election are all excellent trustees in my opinion, I'd like to make sure that candidates from outside the movement are given a fair chance. After all, a successful board (and I'm not saying the present isn't, for the record!) will have a mix of skills that Wiki(p|m)edia experience doesn't necessarily provide. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Voting system[edit source]

Hi all. It's looking like we won't be having an EGM before the AGM. So we should probably include a discussion of the voting system in this AGM. What's been proposed thus far is at:

Should we try to cover this prior to the start of the elections, such that a new voting system could be used for these elections if it's passed? Or should we include it under the resolutions such that it applies to the elections at the 2014 AGM? Input welcome. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We probably could make the decision at the AGM and implement it immediately, but I don't think changing voting systems halfway through an election cycle is a particularly good idea. It's just confusing... the current system is still good enough, it's just perhaps not the best system, so there isn't enough urgency to justify it. --Tango (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
When this question was bought up in previous discussion, it was pointed out that while we can pass a resolution at the AGM, we can't have it in effect for election at that AGM because any changes will have to be passed in time for postal votes. KTC (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
That's a very good point. That means that we'll have to cover this under the resolutions, so that it applies in 2014 rather than this year. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that we were waiting for the review to come out before any potential EGM is called... can we have a chat about this Mike tomorrow? Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to note - me and Richard had a chat by phone on the 1st. The problem with having an EGM before the AGM is that the timing is now rather too tight. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)