Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Otrs-en-l] OTRS workshop in London, 7-8 January

[Michael Peel]

Hi all,

The UK OTRS workshop is coming up this weekend. We currently have 16 confirmed 
attendees. If you're coming to the workshop, and you're not listed as 
'confirmed' athttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS_workshop#Participants and/or 
you haven't received a link to the Google docs spreadsheet for planning this 
event (with estimates for your travel expenses), then please let me know ASAP 
so that we can ensure that we can cater for you during the workshop, and/or 
cover your travel expenses.

I've booked hotel accommodation for a total of 5 people, whom I've just emailed 
with details about the hotel. If you haven't received the hotel information, 
but you're expecting us to provide accommodation for the night of Sat 7th 
September, then please get in touch with me ASAP - otherwise we won't be able 
to guarantee that we can provide overnight accommodation for you.

We're currently planning on an 'unconference'-style workshop including a fair 
amount of time for informal discussion and responding to tickets. If you have 
particular presentations/discussion sessions/breakout sessions that you'd like 
to give/lead, then please add them to the wiki at 
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS_workshop#Agenda . If you want to give a 
'lightning talk' then you can either sign up on-wiki or let us know on the day.

If you have any questions, then please ask them on the wiki page (or it's talk 
page) at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS_workshop, or email me directly.

Thanks,
Mike

On 25 Dec 2011, at 11:56, Michael Peel wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Following from this, my understanding is that, as things currently stand, 
> WMUK will be covering travel expenses and booking accommodation for Shimgray, 
> Doug, Mentifisto and myself. We'll only be covering lunch+saturday evening 
> meal costs for confirmed attendees as per the on-wiki list (currently 11 
> people) . If you will also be attending, please confirm this on-wiki asap - 
> especially if you also need your travel expenses covering, and/or 
> accommodation booking. As a reminder, the on-wiki page is:
> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS_workshop#Participants
> 
> On 24 Dec 2011, at 18:41, HJ Mitchell wrote:
> 
>> I'd just buy 'em if you've run it past Mike and he's happy. I think we're 
>> pretty sure it's going ahead - the room's booked (I was there the other day 
>> and it looks ideal), and we have enough people confirmed for it to be 
>> worthwhile.
>> 
>> (I won't be able to reply to anything else this side of Christmas)
>> 
>> Harry   
>> 
>> From: Doug Weller 
>> To: English OTRS discussion list  
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011, 16:44
>> Subject: Re: [Otrs-en-l] OTRS workshop in London, 7-8 January
>> 
>> I was wondering if I should buy train tickets (they'll get more
>> expensive shortly if they haven't already), but as there are very few
>> confirmations I'm thinking I should wait until it's sure it will take
>> place. Any advice?
>> Doug
>> 
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Michael Peel
>>  wrote:
>> > Hi Doug,
>> >
>> > On 18 Dec 2011, at 20:09, Doug Weller wrote:
>> >
>> >> What's the story about accommodation, do you find a hotel or do we? If
>> >> the latter, any suggestions?
>> >
>> > If you want us to cover your accommodation costs (and request that on the 
>> > wiki), then we will find you a hotel room and will book you into it. 
>> > Otherwise, we'll provide general suggestions for hotels in the next few 
>> > weeks (we're currently in the process of investigating options for hotels 
>> > close to our new office). If you can't wait, and/or you want to sort out 
>> > accommodation for yourself, then please try to find a hotel that is near 
>> > to our office, the details for which are at:
>> > http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Mike
>> > ___
>> > Otrs-en-l mailing list
>> > otrs-e...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/otrs-en-l
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Doug Weller
>> http://www.ramtops.co.uk
>> 
>> ___
>> Otrs-en-l mailing list
>> otrs-e...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/otrs-en-l
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Otrs-en-l mailing list
>> otrs-e...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/otrs-en-l
> 


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Editor retention

[HJ Mitchell]

>From a chapter perspective, getting people aware that the chapter exists and 
>that some Wikipedians do things in "real life" might help encourage retention 
>by getting people along to meetups, events, etc where they can meet and talk 
>to other Wikipedians.

Just an idea.

Harry



 From: Chris Keating 
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
Sent: Wednesday, 4 January 2012, 21:30
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Editor retention
 

It's good to see this conversation starting!

In Sue's presentation she made the point that the Foundation would value help 
from the chapters in addressing the editor retention problem. Some of us on the 
Board have been scratching our heads about this as we do even less on-wiki than 
the Foundation does, and the value of us passing a Board resolution saying 
editor decline is very bad and someone should do something about it is limited. 
;-)

So as well as thoughts on what the community as a whole can do, it would be 
useful to hear views on what the Chapter in particular might usefully do.

Chris


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Editor retention

[Chris Keating]

It's good to see this conversation starting!

In Sue's presentation she made the point that the Foundation would value
help from the chapters in addressing the editor retention problem. Some of
us on the Board have been scratching our heads about this as we do even
less on-wiki than the Foundation does, and the value of us passing a Board
resolution saying editor decline is very bad and someone should do
something about it is limited. ;-)

So as well as thoughts on what the community as a whole can do, it would be
useful to hear views on what the Chapter in particular might usefully do.

Chris
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Editor retention

[Harry Burt]

Does anyone know how the idea that we might limit article creation to
autoconfirmed users whilst directing non-autoconfirmed users to a special
holding area (AfC or similar) evolved once the Foundation refused to
endorse it as stated?

--
Harry Burt (User:Jarry1250)

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Richard Farmbrough  wrote:

> [snip]
>
> How can we promote this change effectively?
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Wikimediauk-l] Editor retention

[Richard Farmbrough]

I have recently watched the SG presentation to WMUK, and I think the 
only way to improve editor retention is to watch some stories, and 
change the systems. I have today undeleted an admittedly rather crap 
article, but which was no way a candidate for speedy as vandalism, and 
changed the wording of one of the warning templates.  (All spurred by 
the user pages of the dozen editors I welcomed while listening to Sue.)  
These are, however somewhat random activities.

As you may know I have attempted to champion simplicity in a hundred 
different ways, with more success in some cases than others. This 
together with a more welcoming culture is the key.  The cultural problem 
is two-fold, firstly systems are more abrasive than we would like, 
template wording etc, and secondly some editors are less welcoming than 
we would like.  Most of this is for good reason, mainly dealing with 
years of vandals and trolls, but it has to change - and in a way this 
would be a reversion to earlier culture, though there never was a golden 
age, there was certainly a more vociferous party urging us down that route.

How can we promote this change effectively?


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Monmouthpedia

[Roger Bamkin]

I'm just copying this to John Cummings, can we add him to the list. I think
hes asked but not managed it yet

Roger

On 30 December 2011 16:10, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-16359364
>
> I've just seen this article. I'd somehow missed this is the planning
> stages (I was vaguely aware of some discussion about qr codes, but hadn't
> realised anything had progressed this far) - it looks like a great idea.
>
> It's a good article too, I particularly like the quote from John about
> being told he should implement his idea himself - that's exactly the
> attitude wmuk should have and we should make everyone aware of that.
>
> The only thing I don't like about the article is that it makes it sound
> like a Wikipedia project, rather than a Wikimedia UK project. It's not a
> big deal, but we should try and get the chapter's role more emphasis.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>


-- 
Roger Bamkin
Chair WMUK 
01332 702993
0758 2020815
Google+:Victuallers
Skype:Victuallers1
Flickr:Victuallers2
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership secretary

[Gordon Joly]

On 04/01/2012 10:19, James Farrar wrote:
> Perhaps someone just went off the number of members in the room, not 
> realising that those present by proxy counted towards quorum.
>
> Speaking as a Teller for the three meetings in question, I never 
> really had any concerns about quorum at any of them, above and beyond 
> the normal level where it's the first thing you keep an eye on. 
> Certainly for the EGM I was relaxed about quorum being met from as 
> early as 27th September, 19 days before the meeting.
>
> 10% really isn't an onerous requirement with proxy votes counting.
Thanks James. Very good to hear your reporting of those meetings and 
your views.

Gordo


-- 

Gordon Joly
gordon.j...@pobox.com
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership secretary

[James Farrar]

Perhaps someone just went off the number of members in the room, not
realising that those present by proxy counted towards quorum.

Speaking as a Teller for the three meetings in question, I never really had
any concerns about quorum at any of them, above and beyond the normal level
where it's the first thing you keep an eye on. Certainly for the EGM I was
relaxed about quorum being met from as early as 27th September, 19 days
before the meeting.

10% really isn't an onerous requirement with proxy votes counting.

On 4 January 2012 09:08, Gordon Joly  wrote:

>
>
> Thanks for this. I am glad to hear that General Meetings are well
> attended. I assume I heard a remark in a Wikimeet or read an email (and
> hence my incorrect statement). I was not able to attend the EGM in 2011,
> and sent in a proxy vote.
>
> Gordo
>
>
>
>
>
> On 04/01/2012 00:05, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > On 3 January 2012 22:30, Gordon Joly  wrote:
> >> Maybe I was thinking of the 2011 AGM. Since I cannot find the figures,
> >> perhaps you could assist?
> > I don't remember any concerns about quorums at any of the general
> > meetings (I've attended all of them). I've looked through the minutes
> > of all the meetings (which are here, for future reference:
> > http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_Meetings). The 2009 AGM had 24
> > members, which was far more than 10% of the total membership at the
> > time. The 2010 AGM had 15 members, which might have been close to 10%
> > - I'm not sure how many members we had at the time. The 2011 AGM
> > minutes don't have the attendance numbers in (just X's - someone
> > better find their notes and fill in the X's before the next AGM so we
> > can approve the minutes), but the room was pretty much full and there
> > were at least a few proxies, so I don't imagine there was a problem.
> >
> > So, the one that looks like it was closest to being inquorate was the
> > 2010 AGM. I've taken a look through the history of the chapter's table
> > on meta and found this:
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_chapters&diff=2268105&oldid=2264870
> >
> > It's an update of the number of members from 71 to "~150" made in
> > January 2011. That suggests that there were less than 150 members in
> > April 2010, so the 2010 meeting was quorate and probably by quote a
> > lot.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia UK mailing list
> > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Gordon Joly
> gordon.j...@pobox.com
> http://www.joly.org.uk/
> Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership secretary

[Thomas Morton]

Sorry, hadn't intended to cause a furore :)

Tom
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership secretary

[Gordon Joly]

Thanks for this. I am glad to hear that General Meetings are well 
attended. I assume I heard a remark in a Wikimeet or read an email (and 
hence my incorrect statement). I was not able to attend the EGM in 2011, 
and sent in a proxy vote.

Gordo





On 04/01/2012 00:05, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 3 January 2012 22:30, Gordon Joly  wrote:
>> Maybe I was thinking of the 2011 AGM. Since I cannot find the figures,
>> perhaps you could assist?
> I don't remember any concerns about quorums at any of the general
> meetings (I've attended all of them). I've looked through the minutes
> of all the meetings (which are here, for future reference:
> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_Meetings). The 2009 AGM had 24
> members, which was far more than 10% of the total membership at the
> time. The 2010 AGM had 15 members, which might have been close to 10%
> - I'm not sure how many members we had at the time. The 2011 AGM
> minutes don't have the attendance numbers in (just X's - someone
> better find their notes and fill in the X's before the next AGM so we
> can approve the minutes), but the room was pretty much full and there
> were at least a few proxies, so I don't imagine there was a problem.
>
> So, the one that looks like it was closest to being inquorate was the
> 2010 AGM. I've taken a look through the history of the chapter's table
> on meta and found this:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_chapters&diff=2268105&oldid=2264870
>
> It's an update of the number of members from 71 to "~150" made in
> January 2011. That suggests that there were less than 150 members in
> April 2010, so the 2010 meeting was quorate and probably by quote a
> lot.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>


-- 

Gordon Joly
gordon.j...@pobox.com
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership secretary

[Gordon Joly]

Fae,

Thanks for putting this in context.

Gordo


On 03/01/2012 22:51, Fae wrote:
> Dear Gordon Joly and Charles Matthews,
>
> I apologise unreservedly.
>
> Having just had two staff members and seven trustees in a three hour
> telecon using our evening going through detailed processes and plans
> for WMUK, I can assure you that we certainly do pay attention, as you
> might pick up from the trustees taking the time to promptly respond
> here in addition to this meeting. If I need to repeat this point in
> all correspondence on wikimediauk-l and avoid any impression of
> flippancy, I am prepared to take that approach rather than a light
> handed one that may be subject to any possible misinterpretation.
>
> Thank you,
> Fae
> --
> http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
> Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
>
> On 3 January 2012 18:22, Gordon Joly  wrote:
>> On 03/01/2012 16:34, Fae wrote:
>>> It's a wiki; anyone can fix it, hint.;-)
>>>
>>> Fae
>>>
>> One of the most important aspects of a membership organization is the
>> membership. In this case, we are members of a registered charity.
>>
>> The organization (and here, I mean the Trustees) should pay attention to
>> membership, renewals, and maintaining communications etc.
>>
>> I find any flippancy disturbing
>>
>> Gordo
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gordon Joly
>> gordon.j...@pobox.com
>> http://www.joly.org.uk/
>> Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>


-- 

Gordon Joly
gordon.j...@pobox.com
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org