Re: WMUK Agenda

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMUK Agenda

Tom Holden

Sending to the list as this discussion shouldn’t be private. Unless we start getting significant numbers of “too much traffic” complaints, we should be discussing everything publically. (Sorry guys, I don’t mean to be an arse…)

 

Reply to the below, apologies if this sounds a little adversarial, I’m just trying to keep us focussed on what’s important:

 

#1 That was not a formal election and we are not at this point a formal board. Lets leave the bureaucracy behind until it’s legally necessary.

#2 Assigning positions beyond those mandated by law (that is to say, secretary) at this point is a bit of a waste of time. We’re a small board and it will generally be more efficient to assign jobs on a case by case basis until after the AGM at which point many of us may no longer be on the board and WMUK can start doing what it was set up to do. Lets not play the “handing out basically meaningless roles” game.

#3 Weekly meetings are fine, but they must not become an excuse for delaying decision making until the next meeting. This list and general IRC should be fine for most of the required discussions. The only circumstance when we should be forced to retreat to meetings for decisions is when someone on the board objects to the consensus decision and a board vote is necessary.

#4 This can wait a while. Once everything is squared with chapters committee we’ll get an internal wiki and at that point someone can ask JamesF nicely to transfer the domain. (This has been much discussed already.)

#5 The MoA and AoA are what we need to discuss. They’ve been talked about a fair bit on this list already, and I got the impression that we’d agreed that we want to basically replicate the changes made by Alison to the original template. If someone (Tango? Alison?) has a list of these changes we can discuss them one by one in the meeting. We also need to discuss the objectives. The objectives list here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Objectives is currently those of WMUK 1.0 with a few that I shoved on the front last month. None of these have really been discussed. We certainly won’t make a final decision at the meeting (not least because everything has to be run past my tame-barrister and any other legal advice we’re getting), but there’s no reason we can’t have a good bash at a draft by the end of it.

 

The only other thing to discuss is whether there are any strong objections to the voting tallies becoming public. Perhaps this will have to be our first board vote (though since the mini-“electoral commission” are completely independent of us they are not at all obliged to listen to anything we decide on the matter).

 

Tom

 

From: Andrew Turvey [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 01 October 2008 22:30
To: Kwan Ting Chan; Michael Peel; Mickey Conn; Tom Holden
Subject: WMUK Agenda

 

Mickey Conn <[hidden email]> said:


Some suggestions for the agenda:

*Chair, Secretary and Treasurer positions
*Timetable
*Mem/Arts
*Time and date of next meeting

What else do we need to ensure we cover?

Best,
Mickey

====

I think that's the main focus captured

#1 I think we should formally note the election results

#2 Positions - we've got five people so we could share the load into five jobs:

Chair - organising meetings, communicating with community
Secy - communicating with Companies House, Tax authorities
Treasurer - open bank account, fund raising
Membership - promoting membership and processing applications
Communications - responding to external queries

#3 Timetable / Next meeting

I've suggested some changes here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Timeline#Some_Changes

Suggest we also set up a schedule of future meetings (weekly?)

#3 Board operations

Before we get down to discussing substantive business, I suggest we take some time
to agree some guidelines on how we're going to be open with the community. My suggestion was:
- Meetings open to the community (facility to go in camera if necessary)
- Times published in advance
- Agendas published in advance
- Issues discussed with community on mail list / meta before coming to Board
- Minutes of Decisions with reasons published on meta (minus confidential info if appropriate)

#4 WMUK v1

Suggest we mandate someone to discuss transfering things over from them (e.g. website)

#5 Mem&Arts

There hasn't really been much discussion on these, and I personally haven't had a chance to read them in depth. Hence I suggest our discussion on the Mem&Arts at this meeting should be limited to high level principles (e.g. being a CLG) and mandate someone (the secretary?) to lead a discussion on meta / the email list on the main decisions to be made and then bring it back for decision to the next meeting


There's my tu'p'orth

What do you think?

 


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMUK Agenda

Thomas Dalton
> #2 Assigning positions beyond those mandated by law (that is to say,
> secretary)

Chair is the only position mandated by law. The requirement to have a
secretary was abolished in the Companies Act 2006, although I would
strongly suggest having one anyway. You'll also need a treasurer as
soon as the incorporation is done, so you may want to assign one now.
I'd hold off on any other positions for now, if I were you.

As for the Mem and Arts, all I have at the moment is a mental list of
ideas (let me know if and when you want them). There haven't been any
real decisions made so far - that's your job!

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMUK Agenda

Andrew Whitworth-2
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> #2 Assigning positions beyond those mandated by law (that is to say,
>> secretary)
>
> Chair is the only position mandated by law. The requirement to have a
> secretary was abolished in the Companies Act 2006, although I would
> strongly suggest having one anyway. You'll also need a treasurer as
> soon as the incorporation is done, so you may want to assign one now.
> I'd hold off on any other positions for now, if I were you.

Having positions is good, even if only good practice for how things
will be when you're incorporated. A chair should be a person who is
organized and who can can lead meetings and keep them on track. A vice
chair can step in to oversee meetings if the chair is missing. A
secretary will be responsible for ensuring things like meeting
transcripts are posted publicly, and ensuring that the board is in
good communication with the community. Treasurer isn't needed till you
have money, but again, it's good practice and you are going to need
somebody eventually.

Not being professional or focused at this stage will only hurt the
chapter in the long run. I suggest everybody take this stuff very
seriously.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMUK Agenda

Thomas Dalton
> Having positions is good, even if only good practice for how things
> will be when you're incorporated. A chair should be a person who is
> organized and who can can lead meetings and keep them on track. A vice
> chair can step in to oversee meetings if the chair is missing. A
> secretary will be responsible for ensuring things like meeting
> transcripts are posted publicly, and ensuring that the board is in
> good communication with the community. Treasurer isn't needed till you
> have money, but again, it's good practice and you are going to need
> somebody eventually.
>
> Not being professional or focused at this stage will only hurt the
> chapter in the long run. I suggest everybody take this stuff very
> seriously.

I'm not sure a vice chair is really necessary for such a small board.
I would just decide that in the absence of the chair, the secretary
chairs meetings, and in the absence of both, the treasurer does. In
the absence of all 3, there is barely a quorum, so hopefully that
won't happen too much, if it does the 2 people left can decide between
themselves or just toss a coin - chairing a meeting of two people
isn't a lot of work!

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMUK Agenda

Michael Peel
In reply to this post by Tom Holden
Tom et al.,
> Sending to the list as this discussion shouldn’t be private. Unless  
> we start getting significant numbers of “too much traffic”  
> complaints, we should be discussing everything publically. (Sorry  
> guys, I don’t mean to be an arse…)
>
Fine with me.
> Reply to the below, apologies if this sounds a little adversarial,  
> I’m just trying to keep us focussed on what’s important:
>
OK; I'll use the same approach then. :)
>  #1 That was not a formal election and we are not at this point a  
> formal board. Lets leave the bureaucracy behind until it’s legally  
> necessary.
>
It's something that will only take a few minutes, and it would be  
good to have it recorded in the meeting notes.
> #2 Assigning positions beyond those mandated by law (that is to  
> say, secretary) at this point is a bit of a waste of time. We’re a  
> small board and it will generally be more efficient to assign jobs  
> on a case by case basis until after the AGM at which point many of  
> us may no longer be on the board and WMUK can start doing what it  
> was set up to do. Lets not play the “handing out basically  
> meaningless roles” game.
>
The rationale behind having 5 positions for 5 people is that it evens  
out the workload, so that everyone has a main-stay useful thing that  
they are doing. It doesn't preclude people from doing other things.  
As a minimum, we need the three positions: chair, secretary,  
treasurer. They may not be legally mandated, but meetings won't go  
smoothly if we don't have a chair (as an example; the chair of course  
will do more than that), we need someone who is in charge of the  
actual paperwork, and we need someone who is in charge of opening the  
bank account, and keeping track of any expenses that may occur as we  
go along.

Membership was something that was notably weak in WMUK1, so it would  
be good to have someone in charge of that. Communications (mainly  
external) would also be useful, although the chair could conceivably  
do that.

> #3 Weekly meetings are fine, but they must not become an excuse for  
> delaying decision making until the next meeting. This list and  
> general IRC should be fine for most of the required discussions.  
> The only circumstance when we should be forced to retreat to  
> meetings for decisions is when someone on the board objects to the  
> consensus decision and a board vote is necessary.
>
Weekly meetings would be good for keeping things going. I concur that  
they must not be an excuse for delaying decisions, but on the flip  
side we shouldn't rush things - so if things need to be delayed by a  
week, so be it. There are other times that retreating in camera will  
probably be required, e.g. discussion of new members where personal  
info needs to be shared/discussed.

> #4 This can wait a while. Once everything is squared with chapters  
> committee we’ll get an internal wiki and at that point someone can  
> ask JamesF nicely to transfer the domain. (This has been much  
> discussed already.)
>
True, it can wait, but it would be good to make a start on it sooner  
rather than later (although the same applies for everything else too...)

> #5 The MoA and AoA are what we need to discuss. They’ve been talked  
> about a fair bit on this list already, and I got the impression  
> that we’d agreed that we want to basically replicate the changes  
> made by Alison to the original template. If someone (Tango?  
> Alison?) has a list of these changes we can discuss them one by one  
> in the meeting. We also need to discuss the objectives. The  
> objectives list here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ 
> Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Objectives is currently those of WMUK 1.0 with a  
> few that I shoved on the front last month. None of these have  
> really been discussed. We certainly won’t make a final decision at  
> the meeting (not least because everything has to be run past my  
> tame-barrister and any other legal advice we’re getting), but  
> there’s no reason we can’t have a good bash at a draft by the end  
> of it.
>
Yup; I agree that this is the main thing to discuss. Hearing Tango's  
and Alison's comments (and anyone else's) on the standard MoA and AoA  
we have on the meta at the moment would be great. Whether the board  
meeting is the right place for an in-depth discussion of the MoA/AoA/
objectives is another question; wouldn't that best be done on this  
list first?

>  The only other thing to discuss is whether there are any strong  
> objections to the voting tallies becoming public. Perhaps this will  
> have to be our first board vote (though since the mini-“electoral  
> commission” are completely independent of us they are not at all  
> obliged to listen to anything we decide on the matter).
>
I think it would be good to have a (short?) discussion about this,  
probably including people in #wikimedia-uk. I don't particularly care  
either way, but at the same time I'm not entirely convinced by the  
reasons you gave for wanting the tallies made public - perhaps you  
can convince me?

 From your email: 1. isn't a good reason, 2. if someone did resign,  
what difference would knowing the tallies actually make? Bear in mind  
that only the 5 of us made the 50% mark. 3. I would hope that people  
would recognize that their votes at AGMs matter anyway, regardless of  
the tallies from this election. 4. Is there anything we could learn  
from the counts that we wouldn't figure out anyway?
>  Tom
>
Mike


> From: Andrew Turvey [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 01 October 2008 22:30
> To: Kwan Ting Chan; Michael Peel; Mickey Conn; Tom Holden
> Subject: WMUK Agenda
>
>
>
> Mickey Conn <[hidden email]> said:
>
>
> Some suggestions for the agenda:
>
> *Chair, Secretary and Treasurer positions
> *Timetable
> *Mem/Arts
> *Time and date of next meeting
>
> What else do we need to ensure we cover?
>
> Best,
> Mickey
>
> ====
>
> I think that's the main focus captured
>
> #1 I think we should formally note the election results
>
> #2 Positions - we've got five people so we could share the load  
> into five jobs:
>
> Chair - organising meetings, communicating with community
> Secy - communicating with Companies House, Tax authorities
> Treasurer - open bank account, fund raising
> Membership - promoting membership and processing applications
> Communications - responding to external queries
>
> #3 Timetable / Next meeting
>
> I've suggested some changes here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ 
> Talk:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Timeline#Some_Changes
>
> Suggest we also set up a schedule of future meetings (weekly?)
>
> #3 Board operations
>
> Before we get down to discussing substantive business, I suggest we  
> take some time
> to agree some guidelines on how we're going to be open with the  
> community. My suggestion was:
> - Meetings open to the community (facility to go in camera if  
> necessary)
> - Times published in advance
> - Agendas published in advance
> - Issues discussed with community on mail list / meta before coming  
> to Board
> - Minutes of Decisions with reasons published on meta (minus  
> confidential info if appropriate)
>
> #4 WMUK v1
>
> Suggest we mandate someone to discuss transfering things over from  
> them (e.g. website)
>
> #5 Mem&Arts
>
> There hasn't really been much discussion on these, and I personally  
> haven't had a chance to read them in depth. Hence I suggest our  
> discussion on the Mem&Arts at this meeting should be limited to  
> high level principles (e.g. being a CLG) and mandate someone (the  
> secretary?) to lead a discussion on meta / the email list on the  
> main decisions to be made and then bring it back for decision to  
> the next meeting
>
>
> There's my tu'p'orth
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMUK Agenda

Alison M. Wheeler
In reply to this post by Andrew Whitworth-2
On Thu, October 2, 2008 00:23, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> Having positions is good, even if only good practice for how things
> will be when you're incorporated.

I'd suggest a much stronger reason to have people with defined
responsibilities. If you know it is your task then you are most likely to
do it, otherwise nobody will take individual responsibility and it might
not get done (or, worse, two or more of you try to arrange it and it just
looks so unprofessional at the other end!) I recall a poem about "everyone
thought someone would do it, etc (googled and copied below!)

Alison

====
Once upon a time...

Once upon a time there were three people;
Everyone, Someone and No-one.
once, there had to be an important thing to be done.
Everyone was asked to do this.
However, Everyone thought Someone would do it.
and although Everyone could do it, No-one did it!
because of this, Someone got mad,
because it was the task of Everyone,
but now No-one did it!
Everyone thought that Someone could do it,
but No-one realised,
that not Everyone would do it.
at the end Everyone blamed Someone because No-one did what Everyone could
have done.

Just Milou

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMUK Agenda

Tom Holden
In reply to this post by Michael Peel
Mostly reasonable enough. My point on positions was that since this board
was only going to be around for three months it might be more efficient to
assign tasks on a task by task basis rather than a role by role one,
particularly as assignments of tasks should require much less discussion
than assignment of roles. This certainly does not mean that we'd be in an
"everyone thought someone else would do it" situation, as those task
assignments would be a matter of public record. A task based approach also
keeps at least some collective responsibility for things getting done for
the whole board, which to me seems right, since if we fail, we fail as an
ensemble. It also means that when the job of one "role" can be parallelized,
it will be.

You write: "There are other times that retreating in camera will probably be
required, e.g. discussion of new members where personal info needs to be
shared/discussed." This raises an interesting question we were briefly
discussing on IRC last night: namely is there any situation where we would
reject the membership application of someone who met the legal requirements?
I can imagine we may decide to eventually reject those who had not paid
supporting membership fees, but I really cannot see any reason for blocking
an application beyond this. I certainly think it would be wrong to tie
membership to on wiki activity or seniority in the community. Does anyone
have strong opinions the other way?

As for opening up voting results, I should probably note that the email you
were replying to was by Thomas Dalton (Tango) not me... The main reason I
think to want to do it is just that "it's the done thing" which rather
suggests that people smarter than us have decided it's optimal. Openness is
good in itself, it provides some minimal verification of the results, and
it's also important for future elections: it means candidates can see what
was popular previously, it means they can decide if there's any point them
making the effort to stand in future and it means voters can potentially
adjust their voting strategy for tactical reasons in future (just imagine
how hard it would be for e.g. people with both labour and liberal sympathies
to decide how to vote in tory constituencies if they did not know the
historical tallies). It may also provide the fairest way of deciding upon a
chair...

Tom
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Peel
Sent: 02 October 2008 08:58
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK Agenda

Tom et al.,
> Sending to the list as this discussion shouldn't be private. Unless  
> we start getting significant numbers of "too much traffic"  
> complaints, we should be discussing everything publically. (Sorry  
> guys, I don't mean to be an arse.)
>
Fine with me.
> Reply to the below, apologies if this sounds a little adversarial,  
> I'm just trying to keep us focussed on what's important:
>
OK; I'll use the same approach then. :)
>  #1 That was not a formal election and we are not at this point a  
> formal board. Lets leave the bureaucracy behind until it's legally  
> necessary.
>
It's something that will only take a few minutes, and it would be  
good to have it recorded in the meeting notes.
> #2 Assigning positions beyond those mandated by law (that is to  
> say, secretary) at this point is a bit of a waste of time. We're a  
> small board and it will generally be more efficient to assign jobs  
> on a case by case basis until after the AGM at which point many of  
> us may no longer be on the board and WMUK can start doing what it  
> was set up to do. Lets not play the "handing out basically  
> meaningless roles" game.
>
The rationale behind having 5 positions for 5 people is that it evens  
out the workload, so that everyone has a main-stay useful thing that  
they are doing. It doesn't preclude people from doing other things.  
As a minimum, we need the three positions: chair, secretary,  
treasurer. They may not be legally mandated, but meetings won't go  
smoothly if we don't have a chair (as an example; the chair of course  
will do more than that), we need someone who is in charge of the  
actual paperwork, and we need someone who is in charge of opening the  
bank account, and keeping track of any expenses that may occur as we  
go along.

Membership was something that was notably weak in WMUK1, so it would  
be good to have someone in charge of that. Communications (mainly  
external) would also be useful, although the chair could conceivably  
do that.

> #3 Weekly meetings are fine, but they must not become an excuse for  
> delaying decision making until the next meeting. This list and  
> general IRC should be fine for most of the required discussions.  
> The only circumstance when we should be forced to retreat to  
> meetings for decisions is when someone on the board objects to the  
> consensus decision and a board vote is necessary.
>
Weekly meetings would be good for keeping things going. I concur that  
they must not be an excuse for delaying decisions, but on the flip  
side we shouldn't rush things - so if things need to be delayed by a  
week, so be it. There are other times that retreating in camera will  
probably be required, e.g. discussion of new members where personal  
info needs to be shared/discussed.

> #4 This can wait a while. Once everything is squared with chapters  
> committee we'll get an internal wiki and at that point someone can  
> ask JamesF nicely to transfer the domain. (This has been much  
> discussed already.)
>
True, it can wait, but it would be good to make a start on it sooner  
rather than later (although the same applies for everything else too...)

> #5 The MoA and AoA are what we need to discuss. They've been talked  
> about a fair bit on this list already, and I got the impression  
> that we'd agreed that we want to basically replicate the changes  
> made by Alison to the original template. If someone (Tango?  
> Alison?) has a list of these changes we can discuss them one by one  
> in the meeting. We also need to discuss the objectives. The  
> objectives list here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ 
> Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Objectives is currently those of WMUK 1.0 with a  
> few that I shoved on the front last month. None of these have  
> really been discussed. We certainly won't make a final decision at  
> the meeting (not least because everything has to be run past my  
> tame-barrister and any other legal advice we're getting), but  
> there's no reason we can't have a good bash at a draft by the end  
> of it.
>
Yup; I agree that this is the main thing to discuss. Hearing Tango's  
and Alison's comments (and anyone else's) on the standard MoA and AoA  
we have on the meta at the moment would be great. Whether the board  
meeting is the right place for an in-depth discussion of the MoA/AoA/
objectives is another question; wouldn't that best be done on this  
list first?

>  The only other thing to discuss is whether there are any strong  
> objections to the voting tallies becoming public. Perhaps this will  
> have to be our first board vote (though since the mini-"electoral  
> commission" are completely independent of us they are not at all  
> obliged to listen to anything we decide on the matter).
>
I think it would be good to have a (short?) discussion about this,  
probably including people in #wikimedia-uk. I don't particularly care  
either way, but at the same time I'm not entirely convinced by the  
reasons you gave for wanting the tallies made public - perhaps you  
can convince me?

 From your email: 1. isn't a good reason, 2. if someone did resign,  
what difference would knowing the tallies actually make? Bear in mind  
that only the 5 of us made the 50% mark. 3. I would hope that people  
would recognize that their votes at AGMs matter anyway, regardless of  
the tallies from this election. 4. Is there anything we could learn  
from the counts that we wouldn't figure out anyway?
>  Tom
>
Mike



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMUK Agenda

Mickey Conn
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Tom Holden <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This raises an interesting question we were briefly
> discussing on IRC last night: namely is there any situation where we would
> reject the membership application of someone who met the legal requirements?
> I can imagine we may decide to eventually reject those who had not paid
> supporting membership fees, but I really cannot see any reason for blocking
> an application beyond this. I certainly think it would be wrong to tie
> membership to on wiki activity or seniority in the community. Does anyone
> have strong opinions the other way?
>

When I've been involved in similar discussions in the past with regard
to a different organisation, the issues arising were around the
categories of membership which had been created (and which the draft
Mem/Arts would permit us to create).  There were often concerns that
individuals or organisations had applied for categories of membership
for which they were not eligible.  Of course, where possible, it made
sense to contact the applicant before the meeting to discuss this, but
sometimes they were insistent on applying for the inappropriate
category, or the inappropriateness only became apparent under
discussion.  This sometimes required examination of details such as
their mailing address, which would have to be done in camera.
Whichever categories of membership we might choose to create, I would
strongly suggest maintaining at least one category which would be open
to any and all applicants.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMUK Agenda

Mickey Conn
In reply to this post by Tom Holden
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Tom Holden <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mostly reasonable enough. My point on positions was that since this board
> was only going to be around for three months it might be more efficient to
> assign tasks on a task by task basis rather than a role by role one,
> particularly as assignments of tasks should require much less discussion
> than assignment of roles. This certainly does not mean that we'd be in an
> "everyone thought someone else would do it" situation, as those task
> assignments would be a matter of public record. A task based approach also
> keeps at least some collective responsibility for things getting done for
> the whole board, which to me seems right, since if we fail, we fail as an
> ensemble. It also means that when the job of one "role" can be parallelized,
> it will be.
>

I don't see the task and role based approaches as necessarily
exclusive.  There are some roles which we are legally required, or
strongly advised, to create.  Beyond that, there are tasks we are
aware will be required and will be ongoing (such as membership and
communications).  If one or more board members wants to take
responsibility for an overview of these, and probably doing the main
share of the work on them, then it seems sensible to formalise it as a
role; this doesn't preclude the board in future mandating someone else
to take on part of the task, or the person taking on the role from
asking other members to assist as needed.

Meanwhile, there are many specific tasks which will not be ongoing
concerns, and even if we wanted to avoid a task-based approach, it
would be difficult to avoid it for all of these.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMUK Agenda

Gordon Joly
In reply to this post by Andrew Whitworth-2
At 19:23 -0400 1/10/08, Andrew Whitworth wrote:

>On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>  #2 Assigning positions beyond those mandated by law (that is to say,
>>>  secretary)
>>
>>  Chair is the only position mandated by law. The requirement to have a
>>  secretary was abolished in the Companies Act 2006, although I would
>>  strongly suggest having one anyway. You'll also need a treasurer as
>>  soon as the incorporation is done, so you may want to assign one now.
>>  I'd hold off on any other positions for now, if I were you.
>
>Having positions is good, even if only good practice for how things
>will be when you're incorporated. A chair should be a person who is
>organized and who can can lead meetings and keep them on track. A vice
>chair can step in to oversee meetings if the chair is missing. A
>secretary will be responsible for ensuring things like meeting
>transcripts are posted publicly, and ensuring that the board is in
>good communication with the community. Treasurer isn't needed till you
>have money, but again, it's good practice and you are going to need
>somebody eventually.
>
>Not being professional or focused at this stage will only hurt the
>chapter in the long run. I suggest everybody take this stuff very
>seriously.
>
>--Andrew Whitworth

The Secretary of any incorporated body can a very different thing for
different bodies. For example, the minutes of meetings are sometimes
taken by the Secretary, sometimes an assistant. Each body can settle
on what fits. For example, I am an Assitant Secretary and I sometimes
take the minutes of meetings.

A Secretary can also act almost as a vice Chair. And the Secretary
and Chair could be the same person (in some bodies).

Here's a suggestion - get some training? Free training might be
available: it is for charities in my borough. Courses like:

"Management Committee - Roles and Responsibilities"

I cannot find the exact link, but there are similar courses that
might be of interest to the Committee here:

http://www.impactfactory.com/p/management_training_skill_development/issues_1259-10106-48374.html



Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[hidden email]///

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMUK Agenda

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Michael Peel
>  From your email: 1. isn't a good reason,

I'm aware of that, I'm pretty sure I added a ";-)" to make that clear.

> 2. if someone did resign,
> what difference would knowing the tallies actually make? Bear in mind
> that only the 5 of us made the 50% mark.

If the 6th person only missed out by one or two votes then it would be
best to just appoint them to the empty seat. If they missed out by a
very large margin, then that might be taken as a "none of the above"
vote by the community and someone that didn't stand would be
appointed.

> 3. I would hope that people
> would recognize that their votes at AGMs matter anyway, regardless of
> the tallies from this election.

But if people won by an enormous margin, an individual's vote really
doesn't matter, since it can't change anything. Compare General
Election turnouts by constituency against the incumbant's margin in
the last election, I'm pretty sure you'll see a sizeable correlation.

>4. Is there anything we could learn
> from the counts that we wouldn't figure out anyway?

Well, yes, how people voted.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l