Wikimedia UK/Meetings/2005.x.16

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The below is a log of the meeting about setting up Wikimedia UK on 2005.x.16. 


[18:02:50] <JamesF> Should we start?
[18:02:55] <LoopZilla> Yes, please!
[18:03:08] <JamesF> Who wants to lead? Or should we just be free-form?
[18:03:23] <LoopZilla> Free form
[18:03:29] <JamesF> That works.
[18:03:33] <JamesF> Fire away. :-)
[18:03:34] <cormaggio> yup
[18:03:45] <cormaggio> ok - any news?
[18:03:57] <LoopZilla> Four of us met face to face last week and decided to meet again on IRC
[18:04:02] <cormaggio> any advances on company, charity structure?
[18:04:15] <JamesF> Amongst other things. :-)
[18:04:16] <LoopZilla> That is so that geography was not an impediment
[18:04:28] <jon|jguk> perhaps you could start by saying what a UK chapter would actually do
[18:04:30] <cormaggio> see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK/October_9th_meeting_in_London
[18:04:32] <LoopZilla> Yes, we assume everybody can watch.... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
[18:04:43] <LoopZilla> Cos somebody may well edit it now!
[18:05:00] <cormaggio> jon: that is one of the aims of this meeting ;-)
[18:05:03] <LoopZilla> I have started "Aims 0.9" as you can see.
[18:05:14] <JamesF> And I've ammended.
[18:05:20] <JamesF> OK, for the aims:
[18:05:22] <LoopZilla> Shall I cut and posted them>??
[18:05:32] <JamesF> The blurb for the Foundation is "A registered non-profit corporation dedicated to encouraging the growth and development of free-content, multi-lingual, wiki-based information and learning projects."
[18:05:38] <JamesF> Heya AlisonW.
[18:05:38] * LoopZilla bows
[18:05:44] <AlisonW> sorry for delay ... realised I hadn't reloaded an IRC client!
[18:06:04] <JamesF> What about using "A charity dedicated to supporting the growth and development of free-content, multi-lingual, wiki-based information and learning projects." or something similar for the aims for Wikimedia UK?
[18:06:05] * LoopZilla favours Colloquy
[18:06:18] <jon|jguk> So one possible aim is to allow donations to be raised in the UK that are tax deductible that will then just be added to the Wikimedia pot
[18:06:19] <LoopZilla> Sounds good to me.
[18:06:25] <AlisonW> (if I disappear I *will* return ... I'm having to reboot cable modem every 20 mins during big download)
[18:06:39] <JamesF> It's short and allows us to be flexible in how we implement it.
[18:06:40] <LoopZilla> Yes. Tax deductible seems to be an aim.
[18:06:50] <cormaggio> jon: yes, but not just a channel of funds
[18:06:59] <JamesF> AlisonW> Fun. I'll post a log, so nothing should be missing.
[18:07:06] <jon|jguk> Cormaggio - then what else would we be doing?
[18:07:15] <Tony_Sidaway> Could wikimedia-uk be part of of wikimedia foundation and still be tax deductible under both tax regimes?
[18:07:26] <JamesF> Tony_Sidaway> Bad problems with that.
[18:07:27] <LoopZilla> Good question Tony
[18:07:36] <JamesF> Tony_Sidaway> Primarily UK libel law.
[18:07:40] <Tony_Sidaway> I mean a donation to wikimedia-uk gets transfered to wikimedia, and does it get tacedin US?
[18:07:44] <Tony_Sidaway> taxed
[18:07:46] <Tony_Sidaway> Libel?
[18:07:51] <Tony_Sidaway> Ah okay
[18:07:57] * Tony_Sidaway understands.
[18:07:58] <cormaggio> jon: supporting local history groups, cllaborating with schools, add your ideas here..
[18:08:01] <JamesF> We want WUK and WMF to be very separate.
[18:08:03] <LoopZilla> 1) tax 2) libel
[18:08:04] <jon|jguk> UK libel law????
[18:08:16] <LoopZilla> Indeed
[18:08:20] <Tony_Sidaway> Assets in UK would give people standing to sue wikimedia for something on a Florida server.
[18:08:20] <AlisonW> libel: if there is a UK presence then UK libel law could be used against it
[18:08:21] <JamesF> Very nasty stuff.
[18:08:21] <jon|jguk> how come?
[18:08:27] <JamesF> Tony_Sidaway> Exactly.
[18:08:37] <jon|jguk> surely not if they are different entities?
[18:08:43] <Tony_Sidaway> UK libel law is VERY plaintiff-friendly.
[18:08:50] <RobChurch> Isn't it just.
[18:09:03] <JamesF> AlisonW> So what we want to do is something like the German association - just a group of interested people, not legally linked in a control relation.
[18:09:23] <JamesF> jguk> Indeed. Hence we can't "be part of the wikimedia foundation"
[18:09:29] <AlisonW> I would *very* much believe that we are not *officielly* connected to worldwide ...
[18:09:38] <AlisonW> "affiliated" maybe, but not *part* of
[18:09:41] <JamesF> Yeah.
[18:09:48] <JamesF> But Wikimedia France actually is. Maybe.
[18:09:51] <cormaggio> we're an outreach organisation of the foundation, yes?
[18:09:56] <JamesF> Which is a potential nightmare.
[18:09:56] <LoopZilla> If we want big grants from say "Heritage Lottery Fund" we must be a charity....
[18:10:00] <jon|jguk> no, but it'd be easy to have separate trustees that give money to the wikimedia foundation for particular causes
[18:10:11] <JamesF> jguk> That's exactly what we want to do.
[18:10:22] <LoopZilla> Trustees can do what they like...
[18:10:30] <JamesF> ... within charity aw.
[18:10:35] <JamesF> s/aw/law/
[18:10:38] <AlisonW> trustees can do what they like ... "within the legal limitatsion"
[18:10:45] <LoopZilla> yup
[18:11:04] <LoopZilla> hence a need to set up right first time
[18:11:06] <jon|jguk> ok - so one thing is to raise money that will be donated to the wikimedia foundation (or potentially other similar foundations) for certain educational purposes
[18:11:09] <jon|jguk> anything else?
[18:11:21] <LoopZilla> I do not see it that way.
[18:11:25] <LoopZilla> We are the UK
[18:11:42] <LoopZilla> 10% could go to the USA parent, maybe
[18:12:11] <cormaggio> LoopZilla - I though it would be 90/10 the other way around, but..
[18:12:13] <AlisonW> Loop ... shouldn't fix any figure in paperwork ... "up to the organisation" from time to time
[18:12:24] <Tony_Sidaway> As long as we make sure that we can donate to, say, meatball or someone else fostering open content development, then it's clearly a separate entity from wikimedia.
[18:12:25] <LoopZilla> OK
[18:12:29] <jon|jguk> let's not get into percentages yet - what else would we do?
[18:12:51] <LoopZilla> See my Aims 0.9?
[18:13:02] <LoopZilla> edited by JamesF
[18:13:05] <JamesF> LoopZilla> I've, erm, "altered" them slightly. :-)
[18:13:13] <LoopZilla> 1) To support the Wikimedia Foundation, based in Florida USA.
[18:13:14] <jon|jguk> I've got http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Possible_projects_of_Wikimedia_UK is there another link?
[18:13:20] <LoopZilla> 2) # To encourage and support the use of Wikipedia in education, both in schools and higher education
[18:13:27] <LoopZilla> 3) To promote literacy through projects that contribute to Wikipedia, both locally and a global level
[18:13:29] <cormaggio> jon - you beat me to it
[18:13:37] <LoopZilla> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
[18:13:44] <LoopZilla> [edit]
[18:13:44] <LoopZilla> Aims Version 0.9
[18:13:55] * RobChurch is now known as RobChurch-Away
[18:15:05] <JamesF> OK, so.
[18:15:06] <LoopZilla> ===Aims Version 0.91=== just releases
[18:15:29] <LoopZilla> 1) # Wikimedia Foundation remains our governing body
[18:15:35] <JamesF> No!
[18:15:37] <JamesF> No no no!
[18:15:43] <LoopZilla> OK?
[18:15:44] <AlisonW> no1
[18:15:45] <LoopZilla> So.
[18:15:50] <JamesF> We /really/ can't have anything in the aims about the Wikimedia Foundation.
[18:15:52] <JamesF> Nothing at all.
[18:15:55] <jon|jguk> we could be a subsidiary of the wikimedia foundation
[18:15:55] <LoopZilla> What is the relationship?
[18:16:00] <LoopZilla> Fine
[18:16:03] <LoopZilla> Aims 0.9
[18:16:07] <LoopZilla> Aims 0.92
[18:16:12] <LoopZilla> coming up
[18:16:14] <AlisonW> We have to be our own "top" ... can't be a subsiduiary
[18:16:15] <jon|jguk> but anyway - let's stick to the aims first - then decide the best way to take them forward
[18:16:20] <JamesF> AlisonW> Yeah.
[18:16:41] <AlisonW> likewise no *formal* relationship in the articles
[18:16:45] <JamesF> Yup.
[18:16:48] <jon|jguk> 2. To encourage and support the use of Wikipedia in education, both in schools and higher education
[18:16:51] <jon|jguk> what does this mean?
[18:17:06] <JamesF> I like my aims statement. But then I would.
[18:17:21] <cormaggio> I like it too, James
[18:17:24] <jon|jguk> ah, but what does it mean in practice
[18:17:25] <AlisonW> everything needs to be couched in general terms rather than specifics ... ie "online encyclopedic services" rather than "wikimedia/wikipedia"
[18:17:28] <JamesF> It's very open-ended - we could do everything that's been suggested under it.
[18:17:32] <jon|jguk> how would we support Wikipedia in......
[18:17:38] <LoopZilla> To support education and learning projects in the UK and worldwide, linked with (but not limited to) projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.
[18:17:41] <LoopZilla> The WMF's blurb reads:
[18:17:44] <LoopZilla>     A registered non-profit corporation dedicated to encouraging the growth and development of free-content, multi-lingual, wiki-based information and learning projects.
[18:17:47] <LoopZilla> How about using this with a slightly changed meaning (encouraging -> supporting to "allow" us to in-mission give grants to organisations such as, oh, perhaps the WMF):
[18:17:51] <LoopZilla>     A charity dedicated to supporting the growth and development of free-content, multi-lingual, wiki-based information and learning projects.
[18:17:54] <LoopZilla> ...?
[18:17:57] <LoopZilla> James F. (talk)
[18:17:59] <cormaggio> jon - it means what we make it to be - and what schools themselves will collaborate on
[18:18:02] <AlisonW> *we* know that our suppoer is going to WP, but it shouldn't be specified (if possible) in the Articles of Association
[18:18:09] <JamesF> Yeah.
[18:18:40] <LoopZilla> what is WP?
[18:18:45] <jon|jguk> cormaggio - I know that, I'm just wondering what ideas are about at the moment
[18:19:02] <JamesF> LoopZilla> I think AlisonW meant the Wikimedia Foundation, or WMF for short.
[18:19:03] <AlisonW> WP - Wikipedia!
[18:19:06] <LoopZilla> Aha!
[18:19:14] <AlisonW> okay ,,., WMF/WP/whatever!
[18:19:24] <cormaggio> jon - it doesn't really matter - keep the aims general
[18:19:26] <JamesF> It's not Wikipedia-specific. There are all the other projects. :-)
[18:19:28] <JamesF> Yup.
[18:20:24] <jon|jguk> cormaggio - maybe, but there must be some ideas of the sort of thing we might do to promote, etc
[18:20:29] <cormaggio> Keeping aims general include no specification of relationship with WMF
[18:20:35] <JamesF> jguk> Not in the aims.
[18:21:05] <jon|jguk> are we talking about buying computers for schools and unis?
[18:21:15] <JamesF> That's not something we'd considered.
[18:21:17] <LoopZilla> No - project based.
[18:21:20] <JamesF> We could, perhaps.
[18:21:27] <jon|jguk> developing a school-friendly version of Wikipedia?
[18:21:30] <LoopZilla> Tesco buy computers for schools
[18:21:38] <jon|jguk> a wikibooks style of textbook?
[18:21:45] <LoopZilla> Could be "school friendly"
[18:21:51] <cormaggio> school friendly version perhaps, buying computers, probably not
[18:21:55] <AlisonW> Articles should always be drawn up to be as non-limiting as possible ... legally anything which is not specified in the Articles is banned
[18:22:01] <JamesF> jguk> Yes, we could do things like that.
[18:22:07] <LoopZilla> WikiVersity, WikiHighSchool, WikiKindergarten
[18:22:21] <JamesF> jguk> But that's not really what we're meant to be discussing now. :-)
[18:22:49] <jon|jguk> are we not? I thought this was to discuss what we'd do
[18:23:00] <cormaggio> Wikiversity etc. - absolutely
[18:23:01] <JamesF> Later in the meeting, I think.
[18:23:02] <LoopZilla> Yes, Jon
[18:23:15] <cormaggio> For now - is it aims and structure?
[18:23:19] <JamesF> Yeah.
[18:23:28] <LoopZilla> It would help to formulate aims,  :|
[18:23:32] <cormaggio> Ok Aims (again)
[18:24:16] <jon|jguk> Sorry - I know this "aims" thing is taking sometime, but without having a good idea of what we're doing, we won't set up the right structure
[18:24:33] <JamesF> AlisonW> How nebulous can you get with the aims? E.g. literacy programmes would create more people able to contribute to "free-content, multi-lingual, wiki-based information and learning projects" - would that be sufficient?
[18:25:00] <cormaggio> jguk> ok, this is what we're doing but we don't need to be so specific for now
[18:25:01] <jon|jguk> So 1) to support wiki-based education (ie in practice to donate money to Wikimedia for specified purposes)
[18:25:21] <jon|jguk> cormac - not too specific, but not too vague either
[18:25:25] <AlisonW> when I set up a recording co-operative I lifted clauses from a number of companies, including running pubs, printing books, teaching and running coaches!
[18:25:28] <JamesF> Do we really want to try to enumerate aims, rather than give a single broad-brush statement?
[18:25:32] <LoopZilla> I asked for the aims of "Creative Commons Inc" which a UK charity. I did not get a response. Does anybody have them or similar aims?
[18:25:34] <AlisonW> ie. *very* nebulous!
[18:25:39] <JamesF> AlisonW> Hmm. :-)
[18:25:42] <cormaggio> "To support wiki-based educational projects in UK and worldwide"
[18:26:05] <JamesF> Do we want to restrict ourselves to wiki-based projects?
[18:26:07] <jon|jguk> 2) To support education in schools and universities through wiki-based learning (wikibooks, Wikiuni, etc)
[18:26:13] <LoopZilla> Cos we want to be an "educational charity"? Agreed?
[18:26:25] <JamesF> Yes.
[18:26:36] <cormaggio> James> maybe base our identity around free content?
[18:26:43] <JamesF> Cormac> Yeah.
[18:27:01] <jon|jguk> JamesF - maybe in final wording in a trust deed, no - but in practice, we'd want wiki-based stuff
[18:27:06] <JamesF> "[A charity dedicated to] supporting the growth and development of multi-lingual free-content information and learning projects."
[18:27:19] <AlisonW> JamesF: General practice in setting up a new company is to use Articles A through E or F for the specific-to-organsation aims, and G through Z for the general catch-all ones that permit growth
[18:27:27] <JamesF> jguk> Well, we're meant to be making up the near-final wording. :-)
[18:27:48] <jon|jguk> JamesF - sounds premature yet - when we haven't agreed your 0.9 aims
[18:27:53] <JamesF> My?
[18:27:55] <cormaggio> James> I second that, for now at least
[18:28:02] <AlisonW> example: If WMF-UK was to take a stall at a tech or educational show and want to offer sweets or books on the stall the Articles need to cover it!
[18:28:02] <JamesF> I have nothing to do with them. :-)
[18:28:10] <jon|jguk> Can we quickly go through point 3
[18:28:16] <jon|jguk> 3) To promote literacy through projects that contribute to Wikipedia, both locally and a global level
[18:28:22] <jon|jguk> how would that be done?
[18:28:25] <JamesF> That's a potential corrollary.
[18:28:30] <JamesF> That's irrelevent.;
[18:28:41] <JamesF> We aren't required to fulfill all of our aims.
[18:28:55] <JamesF> We could have "(8) Bring about world peace."
[18:29:10] <JamesF> ... though I'd suggest not. :-)
[18:29:20] <cormaggio> aw
[18:29:29] <JamesF> We can throw it in if you really want.
[18:29:36] <jon|jguk> Ok, ok, we can drop 3
[18:29:40] <JamesF> Why?
[18:29:44] <JamesF> It's good.
[18:29:50] <cormaggio> I like 3)
[18:29:51] <jon|jguk> what does it mean then?
[18:29:57] <jon|jguk> how would we do it?
[18:30:00] <JamesF> It means exactly what it says.
[18:30:36] <cormaggio> media literacy, computer ;literacy - loads of funding, community development etc
[18:30:51] <JamesF> It would allow us to do things like work with schools to have contributing to Wikimedia as a bit of homework, or something.
[18:31:00] <cormaggio> as well as just good old basic literacy
[18:31:02] <jon|jguk> computers for schools?
[18:31:08] <JamesF> Again, possibly.
[18:31:17] <jon|jguk> sending them wikibooks in pdf form?
[18:31:20] <JamesF> But we'd probably find more useful things to do with our money.
[18:31:24] <cormaggio> possibly in the future - but it's too specific for now
[18:31:28] <JamesF> Yeah.
[18:31:44] <cormaggio> Wikireaders, DVDs perhaps
[18:31:48] <JamesF> Indeed.
[18:31:52] <jon|jguk> ok
[18:31:59] <JamesF> At which point we might need to set up a commercial arm to sell them.
[18:32:02] <JamesF> But that's for a later date.
[18:32:09] <cormaggio> yup
[18:32:13] <jon|jguk> But the first aim would be to get cash to give to Wikimedia (in effect)
[18:32:23] <jon|jguk> and if things go well, look to develop the other things
[18:32:23] <cormaggio> yes, I suppose
[18:32:39] <cormaggio> but to keep a local perspective on all this
[18:32:45] <cormaggio> what's in it for the UK?
[18:32:55] <Throup-mobile> Any tie-in with Wikipedia version 1.0?
[18:33:02] <jon|jguk> well - we'd retain the right to specify to Wikimedia how they use the cash
[18:33:17] <jon|jguk> so we could put a UK flavour on that, if we wanted
[18:33:32] <cormaggio> yes, that's a fair point (but how?)
[18:34:26] <jon|jguk> I'm not sure for now - but going forward if we went into Wikiuni or Wikicurriculum, we'd want a British flavour
[18:34:35] <JamesF> Cormac> Threaten to take our money elsewhere. :-)
[18:34:47] <jon|jguk> we could if we wanted
[18:34:52] <cormaggio> that'll show em
[18:34:57] <JamesF> Indeed.
[18:35:13] * RobChurch-Away is now known as RobChurch
[18:35:33] <cormaggio> curriculum could be a big project - I'm glad you mentioned that Jon
[18:35:47] <jon|jguk> OK - may I summarise what the aims are (but not in the sort of language that'll go in a trust need or memorandum of association)
[18:36:00] <jon|jguk> 1) Raise money to give to the Wikimedia Foundation (subject to UK overview)
[18:36:09] <JamesF> For example we could donate funds to Wikibooks to allow them to get a copy of the syllabi for some GCSE subjects, and so write around that (or something).
[18:36:23] <jon|jguk> 2) Later, look at wikibooks, wikireaders, wikiuni for UK educational establishments
[18:36:56] <jon|jguk> 3) if we get really successful, look at non-web-based distribution of info
[18:37:04] <jon|jguk> is that fair?
[18:37:20] <JamesF> We'd want to do more than just that.
[18:37:34] <RobChurch> Where do the plans for world domination fit in? ;-)
[18:37:40] <JamesF> Indeed. ;-)
[18:37:53] <JamesF> But things like supporting local-history groups.
[18:37:55] <jon|jguk> JamesF - what else?
[18:38:18] <jon|jguk> wouldn't we want local history groups to support us rather than the other way round?
[18:38:19] <cormaggio> yes, local history genealogy are just two ideas so far
[18:38:24] <jon|jguk> they do the original research
[18:38:35] <JamesF> Which, potentially, might long-term feed into Wikipedia et al., but would be interesting.
[18:38:44] <JamesF> And would add a UK flavour, certainly.
[18:38:48] <cormaggio> also multilingual collaboration between languages of the UK (more than just English)
[18:39:07] <JamesF> Supporting the primary research in great detail of the history of, erm, Basildon or whereever.
[18:39:17] <JamesF> Yup.
[18:39:25] <cormaggio> absolutely - geek heaven
[18:39:29] <jon|jguk> OK - but first off is to get off the ground - raise money for Wikimedia, and see if it goes well enough to look into anything else later
[18:39:31] <JamesF> And the immigrant languages, like French, Latin, etc.
[18:39:54] <JamesF> jguk> We /really/ don't want to have to try to alter the aims after the fact.
[18:40:03] <JamesF> jguk> That's why we're doing this now.
[18:40:24] <cormaggio> jon> yes, we need to specify what our aims are and what our intended structure is
[18:40:30] <jon|jguk> JamesF - I'm talking about our real aims for now - we can go on to decide how to phrase it in a trust deed or memo of assoc once we've agreed that
[18:40:35] <Throup-mobile> Some of these aims can raise money (strangely cyclic)
[18:40:51] <cormaggio> Throup - absolutely
[18:40:58] <JamesF> jguk> Yes...? I'm talking about real aims. What are you talking about? :-)
[18:41:02] <jon|jguk> are we agreed on the basic aims, as I put them above? If so, we can move to how to phrase them in a constitution
[18:41:10] <JamesF> Heya Alison.
[18:41:19] <aW> sheesh ... damn telewest!
[18:41:32] <RobChurch> hehe
[18:41:44] <cormaggio> we're still on "aims"
[18:41:46] <jon|jguk> I'm saying that a formal constitution will explain our aims in very broad terms - but in practice we need to have a more precise idea of what we want to do
[18:42:07] <JamesF> Why?
[18:42:12] <cormaggio> jon> we need a basic intro to our aims
[18:42:21] <cormaggio> then a constitution
[18:42:33] <jon|jguk> JamesF - if you don't know what you're trying to do the likelihood is that you won't succeed in doing it:)
[18:42:49] * JamesF sighs.
[18:42:53] <JamesF> That's not what I said.
[18:43:04] <jon|jguk> no, that's what I said:)
[18:43:26] <LoopZilla> Dear James, this may be "action research:
[18:43:27] <jon|jguk> Anyway - I think we're in agreement aren't we?
[18:43:31] <cormaggio> jguk> this is trying to keep to the general aims - not the specific ones
[18:43:42] <JamesF> LoopZilla> :-)
[18:43:47] <jon|jguk> Get money for Wikimedia first - then try the other things if we get enough money to
[18:43:57] <jon|jguk> is that right?
[18:44:00] <JamesF> jguk> [18:39:54] <JamesF> jguk> We /really/ don't want to have to try to alter the aims after the fact.
[18:44:12] <aW> yes, but the AoA and MoA should be designed to enable both without needing to be revamped
[18:44:20] <jon|jguk> aW - agreed
[18:44:32] <aW> (btw, I can't kick "AlisonW" which got left behind on the line failure)
[18:44:34] <JamesF> Alison> Of course.
[18:44:39] * ChanServ sets mode: +o JamesF
[18:44:47] * AlisonW was kicked by JamesF (JamesF�)
[18:45:05] <JamesF> At least we won't have the wrong auto-complete now. :-)
[18:45:13] * ChanServ sets mode: -o JamesF
[18:45:35] <JamesF> Alison> If you had a registered account you could have just ghost-ed it.
[18:45:55] <aW> my nick is registered - but it won't let me back on it!
[18:46:02] <jon|jguk> I think - as long as no-one disagrees with the (1) get money for WM; (2) try some of the other things we've discussed above if we get the resources to
[18:46:13] <JamesF> Do "/msg NickServ ghost AlisonW <password>".
[18:46:17] <RobChurch> aW: /msg nickserv ghost AlisonW <pass>
[18:46:21] <jon|jguk> we can move on to the wording that you want to go onto, James:)
[18:46:30] <JamesF> jguk> Argh.
[18:46:43] <jon|jguk> Argh? :)
[18:46:45] <aW> might have done ... (tries)
[18:47:00] <jon|jguk> By the way - what occupations do we all have? Any charity lawyers? :)
[18:47:02] <cormaggio> jguk> i think it's more than that (as far as an aims statement will need to be)
[18:47:02] <JamesF> jguk> I'm /trying/ to say that the aims that you've suggested are insufficient. This has bollocks-all to do with the wording. :-)
[18:47:07] * aW is now known as AlisonW
[18:47:20] <AlisonW> yay! ... thanks fols!
[18:47:24] <JamesF> No problem.
[18:47:27] <jon|jguk> JamesF - insufficient for what?
[18:47:28] <LoopZilla> aW is the expert
[18:47:50] <JamesF> jguk> To do what we want to.
[18:48:04] <cormaggio> what's on [[m:Wikimedia_UK]] is ok - though needs to be cleaned up
[18:48:10] <jon|jguk> I'll let you speak for a while then
[18:48:15] <JamesF> Cormac> Which part?
[18:49:10] <cormaggio> ok - the bit about rlationship of the foundation - is this ok?
[18:49:29] <cormaggio> i mean "to the foundation"
[18:49:40] <cormaggio> seems dubious
[18:50:00] <JamesF> We'd just be parties working in the same field, who might give grants to each other.
[18:50:19] <AlisonW> Although we are talking about creating a legal company the comparison to a non-corporate body is that "raising money" is in the constitution, and "who we give money to" is only in the "standing orders"
[18:50:32] <AlisonW> it really should not be in the formal documents setting up the company
[18:50:53] * JamesF nods.
[18:50:54] <cormaggio> Can we keep a partnership relationship rather than a parent to WMF?
[18:51:09] <AlisonW> :: corsses hands ::
[18:51:17] <JamesF> One of our aims does need to be "raising money to support the other aims", surely
[18:51:18] <JamesF> ?
[18:51:25] <AlisonW> do not mention Partnerships! they are *very* dangerous in corporate terms
[18:51:31] <cormaggio> ok
[18:51:45] <JamesF> AlisonW> I think Cormac meant partners-in-crime.
[18:51:53] <cormaggio> so what is our relationship - or do we not mention it?
[18:52:00] <Angela> The only relationship there really needs to be is that you will be licensing the use of the trademarks from the WMF.
[18:52:05] <JamesF> Yeah.
[18:52:22] <AlisonW> we don't mentino it. WMF are a business partner once the org is set up, not a part of the org
[18:52:27] <cormaggio> money can be transferred without specifying this in writing?
[18:52:48] <AlisonW> cormaggio - yes, commercial transaction
[18:52:50] <JamesF> Angela> I don't think that we'd need the trademark agreement written into the MoA, would we?
[18:53:13] <cormaggio> JamesF> are you sure?
[18:53:14] <Angela> I['m not sure where it would need to be.
[18:53:32] <cormaggio> it needs to be somewhere surely - AoA?
[18:53:38] <Throup-mobile> As a seperate entity, does that allow more freedom to, say, investigate collaborations between Wikimedia and Moodle.org?
[18:53:42] <JamesF> Why?
[18:53:53] <AlisonW> name usage is a difficult thing, indeed the company I was a part of last year foundered over the rights to the trading name
[18:54:00] <AlisonW> Hi Diva
[18:54:00] <DavidGerard> good evening
[18:54:01] <JamesF> AlisonW> Hmm.
[18:54:03] <JamesF> Heya David.
[18:54:06] <DavidGerard> what have i missed? :-)
[18:54:09] <JamesF> Lots.
[18:54:11] <RobChurch> Lots.
[18:54:14] <DavidGerard> (just woke up and saw msg from jamesf ;-)
[18:54:16] <JamesF> Log will be available later.
[18:54:20] <DavidGerard> cool :-)
[18:54:21] <cormaggio> I thought logo/trademark use was fundamental
[18:54:25] <RobChurch> DavidGerard: You missed the fight. ;-)
[18:54:29] <DavidGerard> so, what have i been volunteered for?
[18:54:30] <JamesF> There was a fight?
[18:54:32] <AlisonW> fight?
[18:54:39] <JamesF> David> Well done, you're the Treasurer. ;-)
[18:54:42] <RobChurch> DavidGerard: Everything. ;-)
[18:54:44] <AlisonW> lol!
[18:55:00] <cormaggio> ah - we found a treasurer!
[18:55:02] <DavidGerard> RobChurch: figures!
[18:55:10] * AlisonW points out the *companies* do not have *treasurers*
[18:55:13] * DavidGerard will sit back and watcht he converstion for a while
[18:55:30] <JamesF> AlisonW> The Board of Trustees will need a Treasurer, no?
[18:55:38] <cormaggio> what about charities?
[18:55:40] <AlisonW> only legal positions required as a Company Secretary and one Director - no others are required
[18:55:43] <JamesF> AlisonW> Or have we got this wrong?
[18:55:49] <jon|jguk> I think we're somewhat ahead of ourselves if we're divi'ing up roles at the moment!
[18:55:51] <AlisonW> "treasurer" is a practical thing, not a legal thing
[18:56:24] <cormaggio> For charities, is it the same?
[18:56:28] <AlisonW> ahuh
[18:56:33] <cormaggio> ok
[18:56:44] <jon|jguk> If we're small, which we will be to begin with - should it be a trust rather than a company, and are there other ways of doing things?
[18:56:45] <JamesF> It still needs be done. :-)
[18:56:52] <AlisonW> a "charity" is not equivalent to a "company" ... just a way of operating after the event
[18:57:27] <AlisonW> setting up a "company" - a legal entity separate from the individuals who run it - protects everyone involved and gives the operation a life after we personally might be involved
[18:57:38] <jon|jguk> what does a trust do?
[18:57:45] <cormaggio> we will be setting up both a charity and a company, no?
[18:58:03] <AlisonW> We are setting up a company. That company will then register as a charity.
[18:58:05] <JamesF> We will be setting up a company, and getting it charity status, I thought.
[18:58:09] <JamesF> Yeah.
[18:58:24] <cormaggio> JamesF> ah
[18:58:32] <LoopZilla> I found a company that sets up charities fo 135 quid.
[18:58:42] <jon|jguk> because of the protection it offers the trustees?
[18:58:52] <jon|jguk> LoopZilla - I can do it myself for less than that
[18:58:58] <JamesF> LoopZilla> AlisonW might be able to do it for ... yeah.
[18:59:07] <AlisonW> basically, a "Company" (of any type) has a legal existence separate from everyone involved
[18:59:12] <jon|jguk> it's about £20 and whatever it costs for a solicitor to watch you sign something!
[18:59:12] <JamesF> Yup.
[18:59:30] <AlisonW> and all it takes is a nubmer of bits of paper that you take along to Companies house witha  filing fee and that is it
[18:59:35] <LoopZilla> Well yes, I am sure we can. But it would be nice to have A.N.Other look over the Aims, etc, as well as the local help (AlisonW)
[18:59:38] <AlisonW> a swear costs £5 at my solicitors!
[18:59:45] <cormaggio> so what about this "tripartite structure"
[18:59:46] <jon|jguk> Alison - is the reason you're saying we want a company because of the personal liability issue?
[18:59:47] * LoopZilla has a Company
[19:00:16] <AlisonW> jon ... yes, plus you won't get charitable status without it, nor bank accounts, etc for "unincorporate body" so easilty
[19:00:18] <AlisonW> easily
[19:00:21] <Tony_Sidaway> You need to appoint officers, and an annual audit and a general meeting.
[19:00:33] <AlisonW> audit not required for small businesses
[19:00:40] <LoopZilla> Liability and also "life after this phase" and the ability to sign contracts as a "body"
[19:00:43] <AlisonW> AGM would apply wither body corproate or not
[19:01:01] <Tony_Sidaway> AlisonW: I suspect the charity commissioners may require an annual audit
[19:01:26] <AlisonW> sorry ... I was meaing in sense of not requiring "Auditors" (legal term)
[19:01:33] <LoopZilla> Question: what do we expect the turnover to be in the first five years?
[19:01:46] <LoopZilla> lay audit?
[19:01:47] <AlisonW> I have this piece of string
[19:01:47] <cormaggio> does it matter?
[19:01:47] <jon|jguk> Would they? I'm only a chartered accountant, I'm not a registered auditor:(
[19:01:58] <jon|jguk> so can't help with audits
[19:02:10] * Retrieving #wikimedia-uk modes...
[19:02:11] <cormaggio> we need to exceed £1000 annually
[19:02:12] <LoopZilla> Yes, cos you get out of full audit by staying small!
[19:02:14] <AlisonW> jon ... unlikely to require "Audit" rather than "audit" in early years
[19:02:17] * Tony_Sidaway shrugs
[19:02:37] * AlisonW apologises that things are business-technical!
[19:02:46] <jon|jguk> Well - how much does the Wikimedia Foundation get from the UK each year, and will they be ok with us just pinching most of it?
[19:02:47] <Tony_Sidaway> We could get donations up to £100,000  a year or more, or we could struggle to make £5,000.
[19:02:54] <JamesF> AlisonW> It's obviously all your fault that there's all this terminology. :-)
[19:02:56] * LoopZilla likes it when aW talks technical
[19:03:02] <JamesF> Hello Delphine.
[19:03:06] <jon|jguk> if so, we could use those statistics as a guide to likely turnover
[19:03:08] <AlisonW> ahuh ... :: scrapes and fawns ::
[19:03:35] <LoopZilla> shall we recap?
[19:03:48] <AlisonW> jon et al ... a problem in setting up any organisation from scratch is that one has no idea of the turnover
[19:03:50] <JamesF> Good idea.
[19:03:59] <delphine> hi all, sorry I'm late :)
[19:03:59] * AlisonW btdtgtts ... a number of times!
[19:04:05] <delphine> is the meeting over?
[19:04:09] <LoopZilla> no
[19:04:11] <delphine> ;)
[19:04:12] <AlisonW> lol ... n0owhere near
[19:04:37] <JamesF> Delphine> No.
[19:04:42] <jon|jguk> aW - I know that - but I'm just wondering - will WF direct UK donors to a UK chapter (so that anything that currently goes to them in pounds sterling could reasonably be expected to come to a UK chapter)?
[19:04:57] <LoopZilla> We are trying to formulate aims, and also review the UK law for charities etc.
[19:05:03] <jon|jguk> if so, we will have some idea of turnover
[19:05:16] <delphine> jon|jguk: very good question, this has been a standing one in the Foundation ;)
[19:05:21] <Angela> I don't think all UK donations should go automatically to the UK chapter.
[19:05:31] <AlisonW> I would hope that every country / component of WMF would direct donors to their local chapter/organisation where such exists
[19:05:35] <cormaggio> I'm not sure we can speculate on turnover, or why we should bother at this stage
[19:05:36] <delphine> well, the idea is that the redirection will probably happen naturally, if people are seeking tax exemption :)
[19:05:36] <LoopZilla> My guess is that turnover should be kept small, say between 1,000 and 10,000 for the first few years.
[19:05:40] <JamesF> jguk> I donate in USD, FWIW, so my donations wouldn't show up in those stats.
[19:05:45] <delphine> and I agree with Angela
[19:05:53] <AlisonW> however it is up to individual donor concerned what is best for their tax treatment
[19:05:55] <Angela> Especially if the aims aren't idenitical, you can't assume people wanting to support Wikimedia as a whole are going to want to support a chapter.
[19:05:59] <jon|jguk> Angela - for example, would a fund-raising drive offer a link to a UK chapter website that would allow UK individuals to give and benefit from gift aid?
[19:06:01] <delphine> people should be able to choose
[19:06:20] <LoopZilla> Gift aid! Very topical!
[19:06:21] <cormaggio> yes, I agree that the two orgs are different
[19:06:29] <JamesF> Argh. Gift Aid. Fun fun fun.
[19:06:50] <delphine> jon|jguk: you might want to take a look at the French and German pages of wikimediafoundation.org
[19:06:58] <delphine> on both pages, the chapters are mentionned
[19:07:07] <jon|jguk> If there was a direct link in a WMF fund-raiser to such a site, most UK residents would select that option - if there isn't then UK chapter turnover would be much, much smaller
[19:07:10] <LoopZilla> The Gift Aid laws (implementation) seem to have moved away from "signed" forms.
[19:07:13] <delphine> but the main donation tools are those of the foundation
[19:07:22] <Angela> It's not just a tax issue. The main issue is what the money will be spent on. If the UK chapter isn't directing money raised during a fundraising drive to the WMF, then it's not helping to meet the budget which that drive was started for.
[19:07:37] <LoopZilla> Delphine, I feel we are very constrained by UK laws here....
[19:08:11] * LoopZilla acks Angela
[19:08:12] <jon|jguk> Quite - but in practice, we'd first look after Wikimedia, and then if there's anything spare, look at developing our other aims
[19:08:28] <RobChurch> wb aW
[19:08:32] <JamesF> AlisonW> We just mentioned Gift Aid. :-)
[19:08:35] <LoopZilla> aW? That u?
[19:08:47] <delphine> LoopZilla: in what sense?
[19:09:03] <delphine> Wait, the Wikimedia UK Chapter would have different goals than the Foundation?
[19:09:34] * aW back after another reboot
[19:09:35] <delphine> (trying to catch up here, bear with me :-) )
[19:09:40] <LoopZilla> My feeling is that "by laws" for France, Germany, etc do not fit will with the Company and Charity laws in the UK (England and Wales)
[19:09:42] <RobChurch> Yeah, we decided that the fact that Jimbo didn't include world domination in his plans was somewhat backward. ;-)
[19:09:48] <JamesF> Delphine> We can't just have our aim to be "collect money for the WMF".
[19:09:57] * aW is now known as AlisonW
[19:10:00] <cormaggio> surely the aims will be largely the same but with a specific UK focus/flavour
[19:10:19] <JamesF> Delphine> Because that would mean we couldn't get charity status, etc.
[19:10:23] <delphine> JamesF: no, but since you are called Wikimedia, they cannot be so far from "supporting the Wikimedia projects"
[19:10:50] <Angela> But the aims aren't going to be running the servers and paying for staff, which is what the main fundraising money is spent on.
[19:11:00] <LoopZilla> Research?
[19:11:18] <JamesF> Possibly.
[19:11:27] <AlisonW> (my disappearances are due to downloading Rampant Rabbit or whatever it is called - large downloads regularly kill my cable moden)
[19:11:49] <AlisonW> I'd think "research" and all relevant equievalents should def be int here
[19:11:50] <JamesF> Delphine> My suggestion for the aim-statement was "[A charity dedicated to] supporting the growth and development of multi-lingual, free-content information and learning projects.".
[19:12:18] <AlisonW> remove "charity", indeed format is to just start with "supporting ..."
[19:12:43] <RobChurch> AlisonW: Isn't that an Ann Summers sex toy?
[19:12:49] * AlisonW corrects that to "Breezy Badger"
[19:12:54] * RobChurch chuckles
[19:13:31] * AlisonW wonders how RobC knows that ... but gets bacxk tot he meeting
[19:13:44] <RobChurch> I don't know how I know it.
[19:14:02] <delphine> Angela: yes, but that is our job, as Foundation, to make sure that those are defined properly. Believe me, whatever you do to try and hide the chapters, people who *want* to get tax exemption will find them and give their money there
[19:14:34] <JamesF> Hello Oldak.
[19:14:35] <DavidGerard> we considered things like e.g. subsidise a developer
[19:14:38] <AlisonW> delphone: there is no intention to "hide" the chapters, just to create a UK one that fits within the legal structures required in the UK
[19:14:39] <delphine> and in the end, tax exemption will bring in more money
[19:14:43] <OldakQuill> Hey, just got home from work.
[19:14:47] <DavidGerard> (I'm thinking keeping Kate from having to find a real job here ;-)
[19:15:08] <JamesF> David> Would that come under "supporting the development of"?
[19:15:36] <OldakQuill> What are we currently discussing?
[19:15:40] <DavidGerard> JamesF: most certainly. mediawiki is used by people in all sorts of places. as is wikimedia. i believe she's doing more sysadmin than coding these days, but y'know., whatever.
[19:15:52] <DavidGerard> OldakQuill: aims of a uk foundation with "wikimedia" in the name.
[19:15:53] <RobChurch> Kate?
[19:15:56] <delphine> AlisonW: my remark was directed to Angela, who seemed to be expressing concern that the money from fundraisers would go to the UK Chapter rather than the Foundation
[19:16:03] <JamesF> David> Then that would be "Supporting the growth of". :_)
[19:16:11] <DavidGerard> user:Kate, who turns the crank that makes the world go round, at least a little bit
[19:16:14] <RobChurch> You're talking about Kate Turner, i.e. innocence, who is a *he*
[19:16:23] <JamesF> No she's not.
[19:16:34] * RobChurch grumbles; was misinformed
[19:16:50] * RobChurch goes back to his corner
[19:16:51] <DavidGerard> RobChurch: only in person
[19:16:54] <AlisonW> delphine: earlier I was commenting about this. Money given to the UK operation *can* be given to the WMF, but that ability mustn't be specified explicitly in the AoA
[19:16:55] <JamesF> No matter. :-)
[19:17:07] <delphine> AlisonW: ok, even cooler then :)
[19:17:19] <JamesF> Delphine> We intend to give lots and lots of money to the Foundation.
[19:17:23] <RobChurch> Leaving us free to bolt with the cash whenever we like; yeah I like that idea.
[19:17:25] <jon|jguk> In practice we'd look after WMF first, and then look at fulfilling other aims
[19:17:27] <delphine> JamesF: can you?
[19:17:39] <delphine> JamesF: I mean *money*, that is
[19:17:47] <AlisonW> Rob ... sadly it won't be *our* money ... the facts of a corproate body having its own legal existence!
[19:17:52] <JamesF> Delphine> Yes. We aren't going to have the problems that the German association has.
[19:17:59] <delphine> not possible as such in France, or Germany
[19:18:01] <delphine> ok cool
[19:18:12] <JamesF> Delphine> Admittedly, yes, there are issues with actually raising the money. :-)
[19:18:29] <RobChurch> AlisonW: Awwww
[19:18:30] <JamesF> Delphine> ... at least, I /think/ we are not going to.
[19:18:45] <AlisonW> what the UK cannot do is give money elsewhere "automatically" or "at a pre-fixed level" .. but an ad-hoc business arrangement is fine
[19:18:51] <JamesF> Yeah.
[19:19:17] <RobChurch> Can't we mug random people in London and steal their cash for the good of the developing world, or somesuch?
[19:19:20] <JamesF> We could look at our coffers and decide to give 50k to the WMF as a grant to fulfill our aims.
[19:19:31] <OldakQuill> Robin Hood-esque
[19:19:32] <JamesF> RobChurch> Feel free to do that. Just don't tell us. :-)
[19:19:41] <DavidGerard> i think if we put "NO CHUGGERS" in the bylaws, people will shower us with cash out of sheer gratitude
[19:19:42] <AlisonW> James ... so long as we can show what we got in return (or felt that we got)
[19:19:45] <jon|jguk> RobChurch - no, our aims are educational, and of benefit to the UK
[19:19:47] <JamesF> AlisonW> Yeah.
[19:19:52] <RobChurch> JamesF: It's what Bob Geldof does...;-)
[19:19:57] <RobChurch> jon|jguk: I was joking...
[19:19:58] <AlisonW> GIVE US THE FUCKING MOENY!
[19:20:01] <jon|jguk> helping a website that's available to the UK is ok, not dealing with world poverty
[19:20:02] <AlisonW> lol
[19:20:08] <JamesF> ... NEOW!
[19:20:12] <RobChurch> lol
[19:20:35] <JamesF> THESE WIKIS ARE DYING!
[19:20:42] <JamesF> Anyway.
[19:20:43] <AlisonW> (my big download has just finished, so hopefully no downtime ahead for the moment)
[19:20:44] <OldakQuill> Which wikis?
[19:20:49] <OldakQuill> Ah, heh
[19:21:07] <cormaggio> Ok - I think we need to recap
[19:21:10] <JamesF> Yes.
[19:21:11] <RobChurch> "Sod the fucking address, let's put up the phone number. People; there are wikis out there dyin' right now, so give us yer fucking money!"
[19:21:16] <RobChurch> Sorry, yes.
[19:21:21] <cormaggio> Aims:
[19:21:36] * delphine sits and looks, amused. Those British have warm blood after all ;)
[19:21:51] <AlisonW> hot blood!
[19:21:54] <JamesF> Delphine> We're talking about an Irishman here. :-)
[19:21:57] <cormaggio> there's some Irish here too y"know
[19:22:07] <JamesF> Delphine> Who don't count as British. Or do. Depending.
[19:22:08] <OldakQuill> N. Irish, isn't he?
[19:22:12] <AlisonW> I live in Camden ... we have loads of 'em!
[19:22:13] <jon|jguk> Cormac - you were on "Aims:"
[19:22:20] <JamesF> Geldof> No, think he's RoI.
[19:22:42] <OldakQuill> Dear me
[19:22:48] <JamesF> "Robert Frederick Xenon Geldof, KBE (born 5 October 1954 in Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin)"
[19:22:53] <JamesF> Xenon!
[19:22:56] <RobChurch> XENON?
[19:22:56] <JamesF> Anyway.
[19:23:06] <cormaggio> yes: "A charity dedicated to supporting the growth and development of free-content, multi-lingual, wiki-based information and learning projects."
[19:23:09] <OldakQuill> Do the face-to-face meetings go as offtrack as this?
[19:23:18] <AlisonW> yes, imho
[19:23:22] <RobChurch> OldakQuill: I imagine they occur in pubs, so probably.
[19:23:27] <OldakQuill> Hehe
[19:23:30] <JamesF> Cormac> Don't we want to dump the "wiki-based" part?
[19:23:32] <cormaggio> To encourage and support the use of Wikipedia in education, both in schools and higher education
[19:23:51] <JamesF> s/Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects where appropriate/
[19:23:52] <cormaggio> 3) To promote literacy through projects that contribute to Wikipedia, both locally and a global level
[19:24:01] <cormaggio> sorry - dump wiki-based
[19:24:17] <JamesF> delphine> Don't link to those.
[19:24:19] <JamesF> We're ignoring them.
[19:24:21] <jon|jguk> Do we want to refer to Wikipedia explicitly?
[19:24:27] * LoopZilla was not born in the Uk, neither were 4 generation before that...
[19:24:29] <DavidGerard> jon|jguk: nope
[19:24:34] <jon|jguk> "free-use"
[19:24:43] <OldakQuill> Wikipedia is just one of Wikimedia - we shouldn't be biased
[19:24:46] <AlisonW> I'm thinking any absolute linkage might be restricting
[19:24:47] <delphine> great, which then?
[19:24:56] <delphine> I spent hours commenting those
[19:24:58] <delphine> :(
[19:25:01] <OldakQuill> Regardless of whether or not Wikipedia is the de facto "centre" of Wikimedia
[19:25:03] <AlisonW> delphine ... thanks!
[19:25:08] <JamesF> Yeah, we're taking them on board.
[19:25:11] <JamesF> But starting again.
[19:25:25] <DavidGerard> ya know there's a lot of non-wikimedia projects we could give a helpful word to if not actual £££ support. placeopedia, open mapping project (a wikilike alternative to Ordnance Survey), etc... it might be good not to limit ourselves
[19:25:44] <delphine> ok, good
[19:25:45] <JamesF> Starting from the it. bylaws was confusing.
[19:25:46] <delphine> :)
[19:25:49] <AlisonW> David .. exactly why AoA are set to widely
[19:25:53] <JamesF> DavidGerard> Yeah.
[19:25:58] <OldakQuill> AoA?
[19:26:05] <jon|jguk> Alison - what is your job? are you a charity lawyer?
[19:26:08] <cormaggio> Delphine> thanks for comments, but we thought we'd pare these bylaws down to two sides of an A4
[19:26:15] <DavidGerard> aims of association
[19:26:26] <JamesF> delphine> Your comments were very helpful, though.
[19:26:27] <OldakQuill> Well, our complete disclusion of non-Wikimedia wikis could encourage aggressive merging and overtaking ;)
[19:26:29] <AlisonW> Articles of Association, along with tje Memorandum of Association they form the legal basis of a corproate body in the UK
[19:26:52] <AlisonW> jon .. .I've set up a number of companies in the past, both from the default tables and from scratch
[19:27:03] <jon|jguk> but what's your profession?
[19:27:15] <jon|jguk> I think we should have a hang on who's qualified to do what
[19:27:16] <AlisonW> lol ... ahem ... tocotox!
[19:27:23] <jon|jguk> tocotox?
[19:27:32] <OldakQuill> Toxic chocolate
[19:27:44] <DavidGerard> "too complicated to explain." she means geek of too many sorts ;-)
[19:27:50] <jon|jguk> what's so secretive about what your job is?
[19:27:53] <AlisonW> TOo COmplicated TO EXplain
[19:28:09] <OldakQuill> She works for MI5
[19:28:11] <AlisonW> not secretive, just complex
[19:28:17] <AlisonW> damn ... found out!
[19:28:20] <jon|jguk> try the job title
[19:28:37] <OldakQuill> Hitperson extraordinaire
[19:28:50] <cormaggio> allright allright - we're all learning here - and some have experience - let's not get too bogged down in job titles
[19:29:08] <JamesF> AlisonW> I'll exclude that from the log.
[19:29:09] <jon|jguk> anyway, my first observation of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK/bylaws is that they should be based on the examples given by the Charities Commission, not by what the Italians have done
[19:29:16] <AlisonW> thanks James
[19:29:21] <JamesF> No problem.
[19:29:24] <jon|jguk> we need ours to be ok with English law, not Italian law
[19:29:43] <JamesF> Exactly.
[19:29:46] <DavidGerard> AlisonW: you realise uk wikimedia will link AlisonW and tax name!
[19:29:58] <AlisonW> David ... that is why user:AlisonW exists
[19:30:01] <jon|jguk> very shameful Alison
[19:30:04] <JamesF> David> Only if she's on the Board. :-)
[19:30:08] <jon|jguk> supporting the LibDems:)
[19:30:22] <JamesF> AlisonW> Or that.
[19:30:25] <AlisonW> stricly, btw, "English & Welsh" law
[19:30:42] <jon|jguk> yes
[19:30:47] <JamesF> Is that the term used? Yuck.
[19:30:54] <jon|jguk> but it's like cricket "England" includes "Wales":)
[19:30:55] <JamesF> It so grammatically inaccurate...
[19:31:01] <cormaggio> we'll be registered in England and Wales, but effective in all UK
[19:31:05] <AlisonW> yes
[19:31:09] <DavidGerard> bloody lib dems. coming over here, taking our seats. send 'em all back to libdemia.
[19:31:17] <JamesF> David> Oi. ;-P
[19:31:18] <AlisonW> Oi!
[19:31:22] * JamesF laughs.
[19:31:30] <DavidGerard> see? my libdem detector worked very well.
[19:31:42] <AlisonW> see what happens when I come out as me!
[19:31:48] * JamesF glares at the bloody Ozzie. ;-)
[19:31:50] * DavidGerard breaks into chorus of red flag
[19:32:05] <DavidGerard> "the working class can kiss my arse/I've got the boss's job at larst"
[19:32:09] <AlisonW> LibDems sing the red flag, Labour sing the Pink flag ...
[19:32:14] <JamesF> David> Singing the Red Flag gets you booted out now. :-)
[19:32:18] <DavidGerard> that's a wire album
[19:32:26] * AlisonW suggests *back to the meeting folks!*
[19:32:41] <OldakQuill> Oi, Lib Dems get very touchy about being called left-wing ;)
[19:32:44] * cormaggio can't wait to read this log..
[19:32:45] <JamesF> Aww, do we have to!? ;-)
[19:32:48] <jon|jguk> anyway - getting back to the point - I think we should start with a Charity Commission model memo and arts, and adapt it - not start with the Italian by-laws and adapt them
[19:32:57] <DavidGerard> jon|jguk: yep.
[19:33:00] <JamesF> Oldak> Or right-wing, for that matter.
[19:33:01] <OldakQuill> Agree
[19:33:06] <JamesF> Me too.
[19:33:08] <DavidGerard> i.e. something that will actuall work in this country.
[19:33:09] <cormaggio> agreed
[19:33:18] * AlisonW *is* left-wing ... as much as I've any relationship with French revolutionary politics anyway
[19:33:20] <jon|jguk> I also think before finalising anything we need to run it passed a lawyer specialising in charity law
[19:33:43] <cormaggio> do we have contacts in this regard?
[19:33:45] * OldakQuill thinks all Wikimedia UK doings should be by acclaimation
[19:34:56] <JamesF> Cormac> I've got a pro-bono offer.
[19:35:11] <cormaggio> ah yes
[19:35:11] * JamesF needs to follow it up.
[19:35:51] <jon|jguk> from a lawyer specialising in English charity law?
[19:36:08] <JamesF> Yes.
[19:36:32] <jon|jguk> a firm offer?
[19:36:38] <cormaggio> great - so what now, Aims? ;-)
[19:36:38] <JamesF> Not yet.
[19:36:50] <jon|jguk> ah - good luck following it up
[19:37:31] <OldakQuill> Definately.
[19:37:58] <OldakQuill> Our aims are to promote the cause of neo-conservatism and American ideals in this 21st century
[19:38:15] <delphine> so
[19:38:19] <delphine> is there a page?
[19:38:38] <JamesF> [[m:Wikimedia UK]]?
[19:39:10] <cormaggio> we need a separate page for the AoA and MoA, yes?
[19:39:26] <cormaggio> we need to work on these over the next month
[19:39:43] <AlisonW> MoA is very straight-forward and standards-based. AoA is the only place that we work ont
[19:39:47] <delphine> jon|jguk: I agree with you as to which way around this should be done
[19:39:55] <cormaggio> we need to set up this company, to set up a charity
[19:40:04] <JamesF> Yes.
[19:40:05] <jon|jguk> http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/registration/mgds.asp
[19:40:14] <AlisonW> oops ... soryy ... got AoA and MoA the wrong way around there!
[19:40:28] <cormaggio> and figure out who's who, ie director/chair, secretary
[19:40:40] <cormaggio> have we got anything solid here?
[19:41:11] <jon|jguk> not yet - but we don't need to do that yet
[19:41:30] <jon|jguk> though we ought to chat sometime about who's qualified to do what, rather than just who fancies doing what
[19:41:47] <OldakQuill> We should elect the most stylish director
[19:42:39] <AlisonW> basically, we are setting up a "Company Limited by Guarantee". Minimum requirements are a Company Secretary (who is responsible for filing the paperwork) and at least one Director. the papers are required to have the names, addresses and styles (basically Job Titles) of the people founding the business
[19:42:54] <jon|jguk> The CEO (or whatever) should ideally be someone with previous experience of running a charity
[19:43:05] <JamesF> AlisonW, then?
[19:43:12] <JamesF> Chair.
[19:43:12] <OldakQuill> Indeed, Alison seems well qualified
[19:43:25] <OldakQuill> But we will have to review all founding members/applicants
[19:43:32] <JamesF> Yes.
[19:43:37] <OldakQuill> NPOV :)
[19:43:41] <AlisonW> In many ways, I'm seeing it that we are setting up a co-operative in the practical sense although different in practice for formal paperwork
[19:43:49] <jon|jguk> maybe Alison, if she's interested, but Oldak's right that we need to review what we're all good at
[19:44:06] * JamesF is just a schmuck. :-)
[19:44:10] <jon|jguk> sorry about http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK/bylaws - will have to format it later
[19:44:14] <JamesF> Does that mean I don't have to do anything. ;-)
[19:44:28] * DavidGerard is good at hanging around being a generic board member
[19:44:29] <cormaggio> not so fast james
[19:44:40] <delphine> lol
[19:44:40] <AlisonW> I'd be happy to take it on ... with support!
[19:44:45] <JamesF> Of course.
[19:44:48] <cormaggio> I support
[19:44:55] * DavidGerard volunteers jamesf as support ;-)
[19:44:59] <DavidGerard> AlisonW: go for it.
[19:45:00] <JamesF> Argh.
[19:45:05] <JamesF> DavidGerard> Bastard! ;-)
[19:45:09] <jon|jguk> Hang on
[19:45:12] <JamesF> Anyawy.
[19:45:16] <DavidGerard> AlisonW: yer a discharged bankrupt iirc. will that present any problems at any stage?
[19:45:17] <jon|jguk> let's get the constitution sorted first
[19:45:21] <delphine> as we say in French, you are putting the <charrue>  before the ox here ;)
[19:45:36] <OldakQuill> JamesF can be the one who hands out candy
[19:45:48] <AlisonW> David ... no problems whatsoever
[19:45:53] <DavidGerard> AlisonW: ah good :-)
[19:46:04] <RobChurch> What did AlisonW do in order to get...OK, don't answer.
[19:46:10] <jon|jguk> candy? we'll need someone to go to the bar for us all!
[19:46:15] <RobChurch> Ha!
[19:46:18] <LoopZilla> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK/bylaws does not help, without aims.
[19:46:29] <AlisonW> "discharged" being the operative word. Rob ... I paid my own way through an MBA course
[19:46:45] <jon|jguk> are you really a discharged bankrupt Alison?
[19:46:53] <AlisonW> ahuh
[19:47:04] <AlisonW> happened a couple of years ago
[19:47:13] <jon|jguk> ah
[19:47:41] <jon|jguk> anyway - we need a volunteer to take the model MoA and AoA on the Charities Commission website and draft up something along the lines we've been talking
[19:47:49] <jon|jguk> so that we can all review it prior to a real-life meet
[19:48:09] <cormaggio> we have about six weeks until that face to face meet
[19:48:10] <JamesF> The next real-life meet is the 27th ofNovember
[19:48:14] <JamesF> Yeah.
[19:48:20] <AlisonW> actually, I rather feel like attacking that ... I'm in the mood to do so!
[19:48:26] <JamesF> Cool!
[19:48:35] * JamesF was going to offer, but he knows nothing, so...
[19:48:38] <AlisonW> having recently built a new puter that is now behaving well
[19:48:55] <jon|jguk> It doesn't really need much prior knowledge, I'd have thought
[19:48:56] <JamesF> AlisonW> It works now?
[19:49:15] <AlisonW> ahuh ... very *very* fast too!
[19:49:17] <jon|jguk> maybe if one of Alison and James wants to have a go, and the other reviews it, before the next meet?
[19:49:19] <JamesF> Cool.
[19:49:21] <JamesF> Sure.
[19:49:35] <AlisonW> collaboration at work!
[19:49:40] <JamesF> Indeed. :-)
[19:49:57] <JamesF> OK, beyond that, what else needs be discussed?
[19:49:59] <jon|jguk> Alison/James - which one of you wants the first punt? (assuming no-one else wants to volunteer at this stage)
[19:50:11] <JamesF> I think it would be best if Alison went first.
[19:50:19] <JamesF> And she /did/ volunteer. :-)
[19:50:28] <jon|jguk> Are you ok with that, Alison?
[19:50:34] <AlisonW> will do ... I have two litres of red bull (equivalent) next to me ...
[19:50:38] <JamesF> Fun.
[19:50:50] <jon|jguk> and I have a glassy of whisky - so I'm better off there too:)
[19:50:57] <JamesF> Might bare some reflection after the fact, though, if it's Red-Bull-fuelled. :)
[19:51:07] <JamesF> s/bare/bear/
[19:51:09] <AlisonW> lol!
[19:51:11] <jon|jguk> Delphine/Angela - we need to get straight what our relationship will be with WMF
[19:51:20] <JamesF> jguk> I thought it was clear?
[19:51:28] <delphine> jon|jguk: it's very simple
[19:51:37] <jon|jguk> not really - what we can do for them is, what will they do to support us?
[19:51:42] <delphine> in the bylaws, you are called Wikimedia
[19:51:45] * AlisonW notes that for legal purposes there is no pre-defined legal relationship between WMFUK and WMF worldwide
[19:51:52] <cormaggio> for AoA, could we copy and paste format onto a wiki and collaborate that way?
[19:51:53] <delphine> and support the Wikimedia projects
[19:51:59] <delphine> should be enough
[19:52:18] <JamesF> Cormac> After Alison and I have had a first stab?
[19:52:28] <jon|jguk> Cormac - it's up to Alison and James, but I'd recommend the rest of us restricted our comments to a talk page and didn't edit the text if we did that
[19:52:54] <JamesF> Hmm. That's a thought. Presumably I can't be involved in the decision-making process over grants given to the WMF if I'm also an officer of the WMF. Conflict of interests all the way to the bank...
[19:52:57] <delphine> is Alison AlisonW ?
[19:53:00] <JamesF> Yeah.
[19:53:21] <jon|jguk> Delphine - and what would WMF do on fundraisers? Have a clear explicit link from the main fundraising page to the UK chapter??
[19:53:47] <JamesF> jguk> Probably, but that wouldn't be a legally-binding part.
[19:53:52] <delphine> jon|jguk: well as it is, the WMF website has a part on tax deductibility
[19:54:01] <delphine> on both French and German chapter
[19:54:09] <JamesF> the_wub> Downing?
[19:54:11] <jon|jguk> Delphine - UK tax deductibility is dependant on it being a UK charity
[19:54:17] <the_wub> ye
[19:54:22] * JamesF nods.
[19:54:22] <the_wub> JamesF: yep
[19:54:28] <delphine> jon|jguk: I know
[19:54:37] <jon|jguk> It would be symbiotic really - if we cut off WMF, we'd know WMF would get rid of the link cutting off most of our funds
[19:54:47] <the_wub> JamesF: how did you know?
[19:54:54] <JamesF> And would revoke our right to the trademarks, etc.
[19:54:55] <jon|jguk> so although there'd be nothing contractual, we'd know it's in our best interests to collaborate fully
[19:54:57] <RobChurch> Hello the_wub
[19:55:02] <JamesF> the_wub> "[19:53:39] * the_wub (n=the_wub@students.dow.cam.ac.uk) has joined #wikimedia-uk"
[19:55:02] <delphine> jon|jguk: I mean that the French and German page give a link to the wikimedia.fr and wikimedia.de for people who want tax exemption in those countries
[19:55:08] <AlisonW> brb
[19:55:18] <the_wub> hi all
[19:55:23] <jon|jguk> So the English language page would give a link to the UK Chapter?
[19:55:32] <delphine> jon|jguk: Wikimedia Foundation will have the power to strip you of your name. No questions asked
[19:55:35] <Angela> Jon|jguk: there would be a contract for the trademark use.
[19:55:38] <the_wub> oh I'm not used to this IRC, its only my 2nd time on
[19:56:11] <jon|jguk> Delphine/Angela - I know that - you'd have the power to strip us of everything, so our powers would (albeit not contractually) be somewhat limited
[19:56:17] <delphine> :)
[19:56:40] <jon|jguk> We'd look after WMF first, and then, only if there was extra, look at the other aims, which are hardly against the ethos of the WMF anyway
[19:56:49] <delphine> ok, that's good
[19:56:52] <JamesF> Well, technically the WMF would have the right to revoke the agreement and sue WUK for trademark infringement.
[19:57:06] <JamesF> Just to be picky. :-)
[19:57:16] <delphine> jon|jguk: well we have to find a way to do that linking thing properly. We never had the problem since you'd be the first English-speaking chapter
[19:57:27] <jon|jguk> It would only have the right to sue for trademark infringement if we used the trademark after they revoked our rights!
[19:57:56] <jon|jguk> Delphine - there shouldn't be a problem - and the 22% tax credit would help raise more money for WMF
[19:58:05] <JamesF> jguk> Our name would in and of itself be that.
[19:58:16] <RobChurch> Is "Wikimedia Foundation" actually a UK-registered trademark then?
[19:58:22] <JamesF> "Wikimedia" is.
[19:58:26] <RobChurch> OK.
[19:58:26] <AlisonW> (I was just going to ask that!)
[19:58:35] <JamesF> I think.
[19:58:37] <AlisonW> registered in which classes?
[19:58:38] * JamesF checks.
[19:58:41] <jon|jguk> JamesF - we'd have a reasonable time to change it (so they couldn't sue us, but it'd effectively kill off most funds)
[19:58:50] <JamesF> Yeah.
[19:59:09] <delphine> JamesF: it's not
[19:59:20] <JamesF> Oh. Indeed.
[19:59:23] <JamesF> It bloody well should be.
[19:59:23] <jon|jguk> Right - shall we check time and location of the next meeting?
[19:59:26] <AlisonW> what is euro-registered? (generally counts)
[19:59:37] <AlisonW> sorry, that should read "euro-wide"
[19:59:47] <delphine> AlisonW: Wikimedia is not registered anywhere, as far as my information goes
[20:00:09] <JamesF> So says the page.
[20:00:13] <JamesF> This is not good.
[20:00:17] <AlisonW> what about other names?
[20:00:24] <JamesF> But simplifies setting up the name.
[20:00:40] <JamesF> Wikipedia, Wikinews, and MediaWiki are all applied for via the USPTO.
[20:00:42] <delphine> AlisonW: Wikipedia is in the process of
[20:00:49] <delphine> and JamesF has them all
[20:01:00] <JamesF> Wikipedia is Madrid-Protocol has applied for. Or something.
[20:01:02] <JamesF> I do?
[20:01:05] <jon|jguk> We don't need to be called Wikimedia UK - we can call ourselves by any name that's not already taken as long as it's not offensive or confusing:)
[20:01:09] <JamesF> Oh, you mean the domains?
[20:01:16] <JamesF> Yeah.
[20:01:31] <JamesF> But I don't have wikipedia.org.uk or wikipedia.co.uk
[20:01:38] <JamesF> Just wikimedia...uk
[20:01:38] <delphine> jon|jguk: then the Foundation is probably not going to sign any trademark agreement with you :D
[20:01:59] <jon|jguk> We could call ourselves Wikimedia.org.uk
[20:02:06] <JamesF> Umm.
[20:02:09] <JamesF> You could try.
[20:02:10] <delphine> ah, domain name?
[20:02:16] <JamesF> But I might lodge an objection. :-)
[20:02:18] <AlisonW> domains aren't relevant to the company (specifically). ... the issue is that of ownership of the busniess name and possible actions for "passing off"
[20:02:22] <jon|jguk> There are other companies with dots in them!
[20:02:31] <delphine> sure, you should call yourself wikimedia.org.uk
[20:02:39] <jon|jguk> Anyway, "Wikimedia" is ok with me
[20:02:45] <AlisonW> very Y2K!
[20:02:52] <delphine> and ask JamesF to give you the domain name :P
[20:02:59] <RobChurch> Very dot-com-boom-and-bust.
[20:03:06] <JamesF> We've already discussed the name and gone with "Wikimedia UK" over the past few years.
[20:03:06] <jon|jguk> there may be a problem using "UK" as you have to prove yourself to be a nationwide company to adopt it - so there'd be extra hassle doing that
[20:03:10] <AlisonW> "Dear James, can we have our domain name back please. Thankyou."
[20:03:15] <JamesF> Can we not discuss this yet again? :-)
[20:03:18] <AlisonW> "UK" is fine ...
[20:03:21] <jon|jguk> calling ourselves "Wikimedia.org.uk" would obviate that:)
[20:03:29] <JamesF> AlisonW> At which point I say "no, they're for the Wikimedia Foundation".
[20:03:34] <jon|jguk> Next meeting? Details?
[20:03:36] <AlisonW> ahuh ...
[20:03:47] <JamesF> :-)
[20:04:16] <LoopZilla> next meeting at the Royal Oak?
[20:04:20] <cormaggio> jon> UK in the title will not be problematic see [[m:Wikimedia_UK]]
[20:04:35] <JamesF> LoopZilla> You mean on the 27th?
[20:04:40] <LoopZilla> See the article for details?
[20:04:46] <LoopZilla> Yes, 27th.
[20:04:46] <jon|jguk> won't it? I thought you needed approval for it - anyway, I shan't worry about that
[20:05:00] <LoopZilla> What about another IRC session?
[20:05:01] <AlisonW> could I suggest an online meeting around the 13th?
[20:05:04] <jon|jguk> Do we need/want it earlier than 27 November?
[20:05:05] <AlisonW> snap!
[20:05:13] <JamesF> LoopZilla> I'm busy for the next 3 weekends, though.
[20:05:17] <LoopZilla> 27th is set for Jimbo to attend
[20:05:32] <LoopZilla> I am very tied up for a few weeks...
[20:05:35] <AlisonW> for reviewing the drafts so that we could print it up ready for signatures on the 27th, ,maybe
[20:05:36] <cormaggio> face to face 27th, IRC 13th
[20:05:53] <JamesF> 13th?
[20:05:56] <LoopZilla> IRC 13th is impossible for me, Sorry
[20:06:03] <JamesF> A Thursday?
[20:06:07] <jon|jguk> Hang on - we can't have signatures until we've agreed initial roles - and we ought to see whether we can get more people involved before we do that
[20:06:08] <LoopZilla> But there is also email!
[20:06:24] <LoopZilla> IRC 13th November
[20:06:28] <delphine> JamesF: are you going to redraft the bylaws, and if yes, where?
[20:06:35] <the_wub> I can hopefully make 13th and 27th (not that I'm much help!)
[20:06:42] <AlisonW> jon ... the formal setup only needs two people to sign on. indeed, there are advantages to having a small number on the setup documents
[20:06:48] <the_wub> I want to meet the mighty Jimbo
[20:06:50] * LoopZilla pleads for a single channel of information
[20:06:51] <AlisonW> it doens't mean anything in the long term as regards operations
[20:06:58] <JamesF> Delphine> At first via email, then Alison and I will put it on the wiki.
[20:06:59] <LoopZilla> mighty JUMBO?
[20:07:05] <jon|jguk> There are - but we still ought to make sure they are the right people
[20:07:21] <LoopZilla> How can we tell?>??????!?!
[20:07:41] <jon|jguk> Well, to some extent we can, to some we can't
[20:07:44] <AlisonW> jon: If you went to an agent to set the thing up they  use themselves as initial names then resign ... not an issue
[20:07:51] <jon|jguk> for example, what everyone does, etc
[20:08:02] <cormaggio> OK - IRC meeting decision and then meeting over, please (for me at least)
[20:08:06] <jon|jguk> Alison - I'm aware how company registration works, I've done it before:)
[20:08:10] <delphine> JamesF: ok
[20:08:13] <AlisonW> who does what and how the *operational* side of a company works isn't part of the legal setup proicess
[20:08:31] <jon|jguk> IRC chat 13 November, 6pm GMT?
[20:08:41] <jon|jguk> To discuss:
[20:08:47] <delphine> JamesF: if you need any help with the funky references to FOundation and all..well, you know where to find me :)
[20:08:49] <AlisonW> jon .. then you know that the people named on the AoA and MoA are irrelevant for most purposes
[20:08:52] <LoopZilla> Should we contact all the names on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_the_United_Kingdom
[20:08:57] <jon|jguk> (1) Alison and James's draft AoA and MoA
[20:09:05] <jon|jguk> (2) Confirmation of initial roles
[20:09:26] <cormaggio> LoopZilla> that seems over the top
[20:09:29] <JamesF> Delphine> Thank you. Hopefully I'll not bother you. :-)
[20:09:30] <jon|jguk> (3) Relevant expertise of various people (so we can start seriously thinking about roles going forward)
[20:09:48] <jon|jguk> And, yes, Loop, we ought to publicise this as widely as possible
[20:09:56] <jon|jguk> on different wikimedia projects
[20:10:01] <LoopZilla> Surely the main role will "Trustees"?
[20:10:09] <delphine> and please keep this on meta?
[20:10:13] <jon|jguk> and on Community Portals, Signpost
[20:10:18] <jon|jguk> Why, Delphine?
[20:10:20] <LoopZilla> On meta. yes
[20:10:21] <DavidGerard> what day of the week is 13 Nov?
[20:10:26] <jon|jguk> SUnday
[20:10:30] <DavidGerard> ok
[20:10:54] <jon|jguk> Delphine - why keep it on meta?
[20:10:57] <AlisonW> :: checks companies house website :: .. online incorporation fee is £15 ...
[20:10:58] <delphine> jon|jguk: because it s where it belongs
[20:11:02] <JamesF> jguk> Where else would it go?
[20:11:06] <JamesF> AlisonW> That all?
[20:11:21] <AlisonW> ahuh ... or £20 for on paper
[20:11:37] <delphine> jon|jguk: you need input from other chapter/making people
[20:11:37] <jon|jguk> There may be talent that we'd want on WP that isn't on WM
[20:11:59] <JamesF> Then get them to contribute to meta.
[20:12:00] <AlisonW> more expensive if you want sameday incorporation ...
[20:12:03] <jon|jguk> Delphine - oh, I thought that was your role (confused)
[20:12:06] <LoopZilla> Who will pay the (15) 20 quid?
[20:12:07] <JamesF> AlisonW> I think we'll live.
[20:12:13] <AlisonW> (£30 elec, £50 other)
[20:12:22] <jon|jguk> Alison - we don't need sameday registration!!
[20:12:24] <delphine> jon|jguk: that is, and I never edit en:
[20:12:26] <JamesF> AlisonW> Founding member contributions.
[20:12:31] <delphine> and I am sure other people are interested
[20:12:33] <AlisonW> it has to be separate money but is recoverable once the company is set up
[20:12:46] <JamesF> Oh.
[20:12:46] <delphine> jon|jguk: will also help keeping only interested people in it
[20:12:59] <AlisonW> as we are setting up a Company Limited by Guarantee there is no founding subscription or paidup shares
[20:13:09] <jon|jguk> Delphine - are you ok with us advertising on WP to direct people to WM?
[20:13:09] <JamesF> Yeah.
[20:13:16] <JamesF> AlisonW> I'm happy to underwrite it.
[20:13:17] <delphine> jon|jguk: of course
[20:13:26] <jon|jguk> That's ok:)
[20:13:31] <AlisonW> basucally, each subscriber agrees to pay £1 in the event the company is wound up, that's all
[20:13:38] <jon|jguk> and you can call me "jon", btw:)
[20:13:46] <delphine> jon|jguk: just I believe you'll avoid noise by keeping it on meta as well
[20:13:48] <jon|jguk> Alison - 1p is better:)
[20:13:52] <delphine> jon|jguk: auto complete :P
[20:13:56] * LoopZilla call him "jon, BTW"
[20:14:11] <JamesF> LoopZilla> You forgot the smilie!
[20:14:24] <AlisonW> jon ... whilst the actual figure is irrelevant in law, people who are providing servies to the company or wanting to check it out will be happier seeing the £1 there
[20:14:42] <AlisonW> as means a more meaningful amount to pay bills if the worst happens
[20:14:46] <AlisonW> (not that it will, but )
[20:14:54] <jon|jguk> So, JamesF has agreed to underwrite the setting up - v kind of him - I'll have to make sure I have a thirst on 27 Nov:)
[20:15:17] <LoopZilla> BTW, are we ruling out "Friendly Society" incorporation?
[20:15:20] <JamesF> jguk> Hey. I think I'll have to get a few rounds bought for me. :-)
[20:15:23] <jon|jguk> Loop - yes!
[20:15:28] <LoopZilla> ok
[20:15:38] <jon|jguk> friendly societies tend to offer life assurance and that sort of thing:)
[20:15:45] <LoopZilla> Not true.
[20:15:48] <delphine> AlisonW: you'll have to explain what this whole company thing is, because I don't get it :)
[20:15:50] <AlisonW> Gordon: practicalities I think
[20:15:58] <LoopZilla> OK
[20:16:04] * delphine shouold not come late to meetings
[20:16:09] <delphine> *should
[20:16:20] <JamesF> Delphine> Nothing particularly more understandable in the earlier part. :-)
[20:16:21] <DavidGerard> there'll be a log up later
[20:16:22] <JamesF> Anyway.
[20:16:27] <DavidGerard> (so i can catch up with the 1st hour!)
[20:16:32] <LoopZilla> My SO is the Secretary of "Friendly Society" with 34 members and share capital of 34 x 12 s 6d.
[20:16:42] <jon|jguk> Delphine - a company has a separate legal personality, which helps reduce the personal risk of the trustees
[20:16:45] <AlisonW> delphine: a "normal" company has shares which people buy at the start - provides the intial cash to do things. a "company limited by guarantee" is effective a non-profit (lol) which only gets money from the subscribers shuld it all go wrong - hence the "guarantee"
[20:16:59] <delphine> ok
[20:17:00] <jon|jguk> Loop - which Friendly Society?
[20:17:17] <LoopZilla> The local allotments.
[20:17:20] <AlisonW> in UK law, a "Limited Company" has a separate legal existence to the people who own it or run it
[20:17:30] <delphine> I think this will need to be explained on the meta page, people are going to wonder if you guys are going googly or something ;)
[20:17:38] <delphine> AlisonW: thx :)
[20:17:38] <AlisonW> absolutely!
[20:17:49] <LoopZilla> So does a "National and Provident" (aka Friendly) Society.
[20:18:15] <JamesF> AlisonW> If we become very big we could convert to company limited by charter ;-)
[20:18:22] <jon|jguk> as does an Unlimited Company, Limited Liability Partnership, Limited Partnership, Scottish Partnership, Friendly Society, Industrial and Provident Society, and a few companies set up by parliament:)
[20:18:26] <LoopZilla> Or a PLC :-)
[20:18:39] <AlisonW> once we're set up that's it. plc costs LOTS to reregister
[20:18:49] <AlisonW> and not appropriate to a charity / nonpro anyway
[20:18:53] <LoopZilla> Industrial and Provident. That;s the one.
[20:18:55] <jon|jguk> Loop - I thought you said it was a Friendly Society, not an Industrial and Provident Society
[20:19:04] <jon|jguk> I thought you'd got it wrong
[20:19:06] <LoopZilla> I was wrong. Sorry
[20:19:08] <AlisonW> I was working on setting up a PLC once (a radio station) .. very expensive!
[20:19:19] <jon|jguk> The Registrar of Friendly Societies also deals with I&P Socs, for some reason
[20:19:31] <AlisonW> jon ... that is in process of change, btw
[20:19:35] <jon|jguk> As I said, Friendly Societies tend to offer life assurance
[20:19:47] <jon|jguk> Alison - is it? what's going to happen?
[20:19:49] <LoopZilla> I thought the FSA dealt with them??
[20:19:51] <zwitter> oh, i seem to have missed a lot of this meeting.
[20:20:05] <AlisonW> someone has recorded it I think
[20:20:16] <jon|jguk> it's a real bugger at the moment trying to get any info from the Registrar of Friendly Societies
[20:20:26] <LoopZilla> The Registrar of Friendly Societies disappeared a few years ago, AFAIK
[20:20:28] <jon|jguk> whereas Companies House info you can download in five mins (or less)
[20:20:47] <jon|jguk> Loop - I'm not sure that's right
[20:20:58] <LoopZilla> Hence the FSA took over
[20:21:01] <jon|jguk> who looks after Friendly Societies?
[20:21:06] <LoopZilla> The FSA
[20:21:09] <AlisonW> jon ... when they are open! (they have a weird website that closes out of business hours for most useful things!
[20:21:23] * JamesF only booked 2.5 hours for this.
[20:21:28] <jon|jguk> Nooo, it's the Friendly Societies Commission that look after Friendly Societies
[20:21:31] <JamesF> Can we wrap up?
[20:21:33] <JamesF> :-)
[20:21:36] <jon|jguk> we've digressed
[20:21:38] <LoopZilla> I wonder if that closure is legally needs, so show what happened on a specific day.
[20:21:40] <JamesF> Just a little.
[20:21:43] * LoopZilla wraps
[20:21:43] * delphine takes the papaer and shiny thread
[20:21:45] <jon|jguk> 6pm GMT 13 Nov on IRC!!!
[20:21:52] <JamesF> Yup.
[20:21:52] * delphine wraps
[20:22:07] <jon|jguk> James and Alison to have completed a draft document for our acclamation beforehand:)
[20:22:08] <delphine> LoopZilla: please remind me, I will have forgotten by then :P
[20:22:12] * LoopZilla stops log
[20:22:21] <cormaggio> I'm heading off
[20:22:26] * LoopZilla is away that weekend!!
[20:22:26] <JamesF> Bye Cormac.
[20:22:27] <delphine> bye Cormac :)
[20:22:38] <cormaggio> Can we put the main bits onto http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_and_UK_charity_law please?
[20:22:43] <LoopZilla> yes
[20:22:50] <LoopZilla> you mean the logs???
[20:22:59] <cormaggio> and other relevant pages around WikimediaUK
[20:23:10] <cormaggio> logs, dunno..
[20:23:41] * LoopZilla logs out and chickens off
[20:23:52] <cormaggio> am tired now and hungry
[20:24:00] <JamesF> OK, I hereby call this meeting to a close. :-)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_UK/Meetings/2005.x.16&oldid=25668948"