WikiConference UK 2013/Elections/Questions/Michael N Maggs

---

---

Answers

As an update to my candidate statement, I should mention that my previous bureaucrat status at Commons has recently been restored. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Key challenge: WMUK's main challenge over the next couple of years will be to establish its position as a substantial national charity having a respected and leading position both within the UK charity sector and also within the international Wikimedia movement. Building reputation requires an effective board operating to the highest standards of probity that works well with the staff while avoiding the temptation to micromanage the charity's day to day operations. Building a substantial national organization requires focus on enunciating and disseminating both our vision and the benefits of membership throughout all areas of the UK, including the encouragement and support of local groups. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Maintaining ethos: I agree that this is likely to pose an an ongoing challenge, and I think it important that the board maintains a very active brief in keeping an eye on the developing relationships between volunteers, board and WMUK staff, and on their respective areas of activity/responsibility. There is currently only a very rudimentary policy in this crucial area, and I would like to see the board give consideration to the development of some general (and obviously flexible) principles that could guide the organization going forward. The board can and should provide a lead where necessary, while being very clear that the purpose of WMUK is to support the community and not vice versa. My experience as a Commons bureaucrat of developing and drafting general principles for community discussion and agreement could well be useful, as could my experience of helping to guide and manage the inevitable changes that were needed in my law firm as it grew from 30 people to around 150. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

3. Membership size & attributes: If forced to choose I would prefer the latter, definitely. I've no idea what the actual statistics are, but I'd venture a wild guess that 10% of the members in any volunteer organization make 90% of the contributions. Given that our aim is to make free content available to all, spending time encouraging potentially active members who can truly help us achieve that is a more efficient use of limited resources than just trying to make up numbers. On the other hand, we should not ignore numbers entirely, as a large membership provides at the very least a pool of supporters who can spread the word, some of whom might well become active when they see something that grabs their interest. Also, a large membership helps to boost the standing of the charity, its income, and its overall clout. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

4. Hudson Review:

1. Yes of course (first thing I did!)

2. The report is in my view a sensitively written and balanced response to some of the problems that arose during what was evidently a difficult bedding-in period for the charity. None of the principal recommendations were surprising to me, as they follow generally-agreed points of good practice which were familiar from my own previous governance roles. The level of the reviewers' concern can be seen from the fact that they felt it necessary to make some recommendations that should go without saying, for example that all communications should be 'respectful and professional'. Following publication of the report the board seems to have made good progress in dealing with many of the issues that were identified, but this must clearly be an ongoing process. Although not an area stressed by the reviewers I would also like to see more discussion of the relationship between the board and the wider membership.

3. The primary lessons in my view are, in no particular order:

• the need for the board to include trustees with a deeper and wider range of outside skills and experience, particularly governance and legal experience;
• the need for the board to step back from micromanaging and to adopt a more strategic and leadership-focussed role;
• the need for a better understanding of the detailed requirements of English company and charity law and good practice, especially relating to potential as well as actual conflicts of interest; and
• a recognition of the great care that has to be taken in such a high profile and open charity to avoid accidental reputational damage (especially given the level of external scrutiny). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

5. Training metrics: Measuring the effectiveness of training is an area in which reliable quantitative metrics are difficult to come by, and in practice a mixed approach will probably work best. Relying entirely on quantitative measures would risk an undue focus on 'getting the numbers up' rather than seeking the optimal outcome for the charity (the widest possible dissemination and use of open content). Two very obvious metrics that have not yet been mentioned are the number of users trained per year, and the level of external demand for more training sessions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)