Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Gordon Joly]

On 24/06/2011 11:38, Richard Farmbrough wrote:
> The charity status will be resolved in time, I am sure. I have been
> involved in a number of educational charities, and it is just a matter
> of patience.
>
Since what epoch have we been asked to have patience?

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] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Thomas Dalton]

On 26 June 2011 13:17, Richard Farmbrough  wrote:
> As the organisation needs to budget a year ahead, and has no guarantee of
> income it is not, perhaps, unreasonable - and certainly sustainable -  to
> budget expenditure based on the predicted cash balance at the beginning of
> the year.  To do otherwise risks making financial commitments with no
> certainty of being able to fund them.

We chose our financial year to start on 1 February so that we would
know the results of the fundraiser (which is where we get 99% of our
revenue) before the budget was finalised. The budget the previous
board came up with was based on the actual amount of money we had
available to spend.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Richard Farmbrough]

I think there's a number of factors that should be taken into account. 
Firstly the money is donated to be used, so  in the medium term 
outgoings *should* match incomings. Secondly any organisation should 
have a reasonable contingency reserve, we are not talking about the 
situation here where (like some charities, that have been castigated by 
the Charities Commission, among others) we would have a cash reserve 
equivalent to 20 years turnover.  Thirdly, as a start-up, we cannot 
predicate too much on the first years figures.  Fourthly it is common 
for spending to overshoot projections and income to undershoot.  Fifthly 
income and expenditure are both "lumpy" in different ways, a proper 
accounting system may well deal with this in terms of accruals, but 
nonetheless cash-flow still has to work.


As the organisation needs to budget a year ahead, and has no guarantee 
of income it is not, perhaps, unreasonable - and certainly sustainable 
-  to budget expenditure based on the predicted cash balance at the 
beginning of the year.  To do otherwise risks making financial 
commitments with no certainty of being able to fund them.



On 24/06/2011 17:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:

On 24 June 2011 13:09, Chris Keating  wrote:

I agree with this as well, but observe that a big plan to spend lots of
money over the long term is something that takes time to develop if it is to
be effective.

Sure, but if the plan isn't going to be ready until next year, then
pay for it out of next year's budget. There is no need to keep this
year's budget back for it.

___
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] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Thomas Dalton]

On 24 June 2011 13:09, Chris Keating  wrote:
> I agree with this as well, but observe that a big plan to spend lots of
> money over the long term is something that takes time to develop if it is to
> be effective.

Sure, but if the plan isn't going to be ready until next year, then
pay for it out of next year's budget. There is no need to keep this
year's budget back for it.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Chris Keating]

>
>
> I agree, but the membership should still be kept up-to-date on where
> things stand.


I quite agree


>
> > On funding, there is plenty to do, let us not be desperate to dispose of
> > funds that we may well need later on.
>
> We can expect revenue to increase substantially over the next few
> years, so we really don't need to save money to spend in those years.
> It's also not sustainable - if we use this years money to fund extra
> projects (particularly long-term projects like the one you mention)
> next year, what will we do the year after? Apart from a prudent
> reserve, the general principle that funds should be spend promptly is
> a good one. It's not immutable, certainly, but there should be a very
> good reason for deviating from it.
>
>
I agree with this as well, but observe that a big plan to spend lots of
money over the long term is something that takes time to develop if it is to
be effective.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Thomas Dalton]

On 24 June 2011 11:38, Richard Farmbrough  wrote:
> The charity status will be resolved in time, I am sure. I have been
> involved in a number of educational charities, and it is just a matter
> of patience.

I agree, but the membership should still be kept up-to-date on where
things stand.

> On funding, there is plenty to do, let us not be desperate to dispose of
> funds that we may well need later on.

We can expect revenue to increase substantially over the next few
years, so we really don't need to save money to spend in those years.
It's also not sustainable - if we use this years money to fund extra
projects (particularly long-term projects like the one you mention)
next year, what will we do the year after? Apart from a prudent
reserve, the general principle that funds should be spend promptly is
a good one. It's not immutable, certainly, but there should be a very
good reason for deviating from it.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Richard Farmbrough]

The charity status will be resolved in time, I am sure. I have been 
involved in a number of educational charities, and it is just a matter 
of patience.

On funding, there is plenty to do, let us not be desperate to dispose of 
funds that we may well need later on.  For example I am trying to get 
more involved in the (possibly doomed) attempt to save Stamford Museum, 
and one thing that has come to my mind is that mirroring the museum on 
line would be a worthwhile effort. This could be done either by throwing 
money at it, or by selectively working with a mixture of volunteer and 
paid effort, and building a procedure that would allow the process to be 
replicated elsewhere.  I prefer the latter.  One a project like this 
blossoms, though, the costs multiply.The same would apply to, for 
example, schools out-reach.  If we pilot a programme in year one, say 
one or two volunteers visiting a dozen schools  each, with expenses of 
maybe £100 per visit, then £2,400 will hardly dent the coffers.  But 
year two we might have twenty or thirty volunteers, and be running the 
program at £36,000 pa.




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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Thomas Dalton]

On 23 June 2011 09:56, Martin Poulter  wrote:
> Nor do I like the idea of viewing the charity application as being
> adversarial, and no, the CC aren't out to get us. That wasn't what I was
> trying to imply. However, it is a negotiation process, involving third
> parties as well as us and the CC. There are different possible angles to
> take - some productive; some counter-productive - and while those
> discussions are definitely being had, it doesn't necessarily help for them
> to be public discussions. I don't think it would be wise to publicly discuss
> "snags", for example.

Sure, but you can keep the membership informed about what you are
doing in general terms. You don't need to go into detail about what
arguments you are or aren't using, you just need to tell us what's
going on. Saying "it's a top priority, trust us" isn't particularly
convincing when it's been over a year since we got the response from
the charity commission to our initial application and it looks like
very little has been done since then. (I'm aware that most of that
year was on my watch, not yours, and that lots of things have been and
are happening, but that hasn't been communicated to the membership.)

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Martin Poulter]

Nor do I like the idea of viewing the charity application as being
adversarial, and no, the CC aren't out to get us. That wasn't what I was
trying to imply. However, it is a negotiation process, involving third
parties as well as us and the CC. There are different possible angles to
take - some productive; some counter-productive - and while those
discussions are definitely being had, it doesn't necessarily help for them
to be public discussions. I don't think it would be wise to publicly discuss
"snags", for example.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> On 22 June 2011 09:58, Martin Poulter  wrote:
> > Just to be clear, the Board are giving charity status the highest
> priority-
> > you can take that as given. However, we're very concerned not to "show
> our
> > hand" by discussing those negotiations more widely. In that respect, the
> > lack of detail in public communications is a sign of how seriously we
> take
> > the issue.
>
> I'm not sure I like the idea of viewing the charity application as
> being adversarial. The CC aren't out to get us, they just need to be
> helped to understand what we do and realise that it is charitable. We
> should be being open with the CC, not trying to bluff them.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>



-- 
Dr Martin L Poulter   ICT Manager, The Economics Network
Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/

The full experience: http://infobomb.org/
Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
Board member of Wikimedia UK: http://uk.wikimedia.org/
"Creating a world in which every single human being can freely share
in the sum of all knowledge"
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Roger Bamkin]

To summarise - your board are giving this a high priority, but there is no
"magic bullet" of just spending money on lawyers or working harder.
Wikimedia Australia have been reliably informed that they need an act of
Parliament to get their charity status. Hopefully we
can avoid this but there are few precedents.

The ideas that we have for spending money require management, description
and the necessary volunteers to staff them. The board cannot be reasonably
be expected to supply all, or any, of these but they do have an obligation
to make sure that they all exist. As Chris has noted we have refused few (if
any) applications. You guys have the power to spend money faster if you can
find the time to justify how we can spend money with credible objectives.


cheers Roger Bamkin
On 22 June 2011 20:35, Gordon Joly  wrote:

> On 22/06/2011 09:58, Martin Poulter wrote:
> > Just to be clear, the Board are giving charity status the highest
> > priority- you can take that as given.
> Many thanks. Looking out for timescales, outlook, snags, changes in
> legislation and the rest.
>
> Gordon
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>



-- 
Roger Bamkin
(aka Victuallers)
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Gordon Joly]

On 22/06/2011 09:58, Martin Poulter wrote:
> Just to be clear, the Board are giving charity status the highest 
> priority- you can take that as given. 
Many thanks. Looking out for timescales, outlook, snags, changes in 
legislation and the rest.

Gordon


-- 

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] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Thomas Dalton]

On 22 June 2011 09:58, Martin Poulter  wrote:
> Just to be clear, the Board are giving charity status the highest priority-
> you can take that as given. However, we're very concerned not to "show our
> hand" by discussing those negotiations more widely. In that respect, the
> lack of detail in public communications is a sign of how seriously we take
> the issue.

I'm not sure I like the idea of viewing the charity application as
being adversarial. The CC aren't out to get us, they just need to be
helped to understand what we do and realise that it is charitable. We
should be being open with the CC, not trying to bluff them.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Martin Poulter]

Just to be clear, the Board are giving charity status the highest priority-
you can take that as given. However, we're very concerned not to "show our
hand" by discussing those negotiations more widely. In that respect, the
lack of detail in public communications is a sign of how seriously we take
the issue.

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> In addition to the charity status already mentioned (which is
> extremely concerning in its absence),


-- 
Dr Martin L Poulter   ICT Manager, The Economics Network
Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/

The full experience: http://infobomb.org/
Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
Board member of Wikimedia UK: http://uk.wikimedia.org/
"Creating a world in which every single human being can freely share
in the sum of all knowledge"
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Brian McNeil]

On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 19:49 +0100, Chris Keating wrote:

> Very glad to hear it :-)

> As I said earlier in the thread - we have not yet turned down a
> request for funding from a community member who has come to us with a
> plan and the enthusiasm to make it happen themselves. We are overspent
> on our "opportunity fund" and proposals to increase the overspend in
> this area are definitely welcomed. :-D

Chris, from the EdLUG point of view, any really geeky person we can
provide who can talk about the MediaWiki server farms would be very,
very welcome (Would Brion like a visit to Edinburgh?). For the LAMP
people, someone who could evangelise MW in preference to Sharepoint is
going to be of interest. They'd have taken a presentation from Witty
Lama if we'd had more notice, and more schedule flexibility.


-- 
Brian McNeil.
-- 
brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org | Wikinews Accredited Reporter.
http://en.wikinews.org | http://www.wikinewsie.org
"Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news".


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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Chris Keating]

>
> Liam and John will be able to provide some "spend opportunities" at the
> meeting in York. Galleries and Museums Scotland (GMS) were very
> receptive in this afternoon's meeting.
>
> I've also had interest expressed by the Edinburgh Linux Users' Group
> (EdLUG) and the Libraries And Museum Professionals (LAMP) group with
> Edinburgh University; they'd be most interested in any proposals on
> presentations - for example, on MediaWiki and how they could use it (I
> noted GMS using SharePoint...).
>
>
Very glad to hear it :-)

As I said earlier in the thread - we have not yet turned down a request for
funding from a community member who has come to us with a plan and the
enthusiasm to make it happen themselves. We are overspent on our
"opportunity fund" and proposals to increase the overspend in this area are
definitely welcomed. :-D

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Brian McNeil]

On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:38 +0100, Chris Keating wrote:

> * Budget/underspend - yes, we will be underspent on staff, we're
> overspending on some other areas (for instance, the Opportunity Fund,
> where we haven't yet said no to a proposal from an individual for
> money to make something cool happen).  
> 
> 
> The way we are working is to look at the long-term development of the
> organisation. Thinking "OMG we have money we must spend it now!" is
> not the right way to take decisions. The Charity Commission says
> charities need to spend money "reasonably promptly" to fulfill their
> objects and that is what we intend to do, but "reasonably promptly"
> does not require us to spend money within 12 months of receipt.

Liam and John will be able to provide some "spend opportunities" at the
meeting in York. Galleries and Museums Scotland (GMS) were very
receptive in this afternoon's meeting.

I've also had interest expressed by the Edinburgh Linux Users' Group
(EdLUG) and the Libraries And Museum Professionals (LAMP) group with
Edinburgh University; they'd be most interested in any proposals on
presentations - for example, on MediaWiki and how they could use it (I
noted GMS using SharePoint...).


-- 
Brian McNeil.
-- 
brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org | Wikinews Accredited Reporter.
http://en.wikinews.org | http://www.wikinewsie.org
"Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news".


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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Tom Morris]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 13:44, Alex Stinson  wrote:
> Well, one way to spend money in order to directly support the UK community's
> goals would be, once you have a chapter manager, to hire an agency or
> contractor to run an awareness campaign (Posters at public transportation
> outlets, radio and telivision ads, etc.) to get other people to contribute
> in Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects and get the face of the community out
> there, like Wikimedia Deutschland did.

I'm not wild about ads aimed at the general public on TV or billboards
etc. I think we might consider more niche audiences. If we wanted to
target photographers to get them to contribute to Commons, maybe an ad
in Amateur Photographer or similar outlets could work.

As part of an upcoming GLAM event, we have been trying to find people
who are interested in doing translation work into any of the languages
of India (Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu etc.). If ensuring that
Wikimedia UK doesn't end up being 'Wikimedia British English' were
considered an important goal, perhaps we could attempt small-scale
advertising (maybe £500 a pop) in magazines read by multilingual
readers.

Advertising doesn't mean putting a big TV advert up in the middle of
Coronation Street. It can be aimed towards a very niche set of
participants we want to draw in, perhaps to rectify systemic bias
issues.[1]

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias

-- 
Tom Morris


Please don't print this e-mail out unless you want a hard copy of
it. If you do, go ahead. I won't stop you. Nor will I waste your
ink/toner with 300+ lines of completely pointless and legally
unenforceable cargo cult blather about corporate confidentiality.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Thomas Dalton]

On 20 June 2011 13:42, Thomas Morton  wrote:
> I suggest considering a "fire sale" later in the year once the amount of the
> underspend is better known - literally assign half of the spare cash (or w/e
> can be spared) to whatever ideas the Chapter agrees would be useful things
> to do/have. I tend to mean "big" ideas here, stuff that it too expensive for
> the normal program of expenditure but would be really useful/helpful to
> have.

The problem is finding the time to do those big ideas. The reason the
previous board decided to hire lots of staff is because we had lots of
money and very little time. Hiring staff is the best way to convert
money into time. If there are volunteers wanting to organise big
events themselves, I'm sure WMUK can fund them, but there tend not to
be such volunteers. That's why hiring an events organiser was a good
plan - they can do a lot of the time consuming work of organising
events and leave the volunteers to just do the interesting bits.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Harry Burt]

Hey all.

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Alex Stinson wrote:
>
> Well, one way to spend money in order to directly support the UK
> community's goals would be, once you have a chapter manager, to hire an
> agency or contractor to run an awareness campaign (Posters at public
> transportation outlets, radio and telivision ads, etc.) to get other people
> to contribute in Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects and get the face of the
> community out there, like Wikimedia Deutschland did.
>

I think, to my mind, the issue is cost effectiveness. Do we really need more
British Wikipedia editors/Wikimedians? How many people are there in the UK
who would contribute, but don't know of the possibilities? These are tough
questions.

Since this thread includes some of the activity formerly known as
"brainstorming", can I suggest simple technological projects as providing a
good cost-return ratio? I can't be the only student with programming
knowledge, and we come cheap by comparison to an advertising campaign. Even
bigger projects where proper professional help was required still look
positively inexpensive to me. Of course the problem with this rests in being
able to think of good ideas for "apps" -- whether little things that help
people contribute, bigger projects and/or show-pieces that highlight what
we've already got -- but it's a starting point. I can't be the first to
suggest this, so if someone could point me in the direction of a suitable
wiki page / mailing list post that would be good too :)

Of course I would like to see hackday too, but since I'm in no position to
organise it I can't really criticise.

Just my thoughts - feel free to ignore!

Harry (User:Jarry1250)
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Alex Stinson]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> While there is no absolute requirement to spend money within a year,
> there is a requirement to justify your reserves. Having big reserves
> just because you didn't get around to spending it isn't going to sit
> very well. Transferring more to the WMF is an option, but we don't
> want to end up with raising funds for the WMF looking like our primary
> mission (that wouldn't necessarily preclude charity status, but it
> would complicate things - it may also not sit well with the
> membership). The big question is, is transferring the funds to the WMF
> going to further our mission better than spending it ourselves in a
> rush? That's not easy to answer...
>

Well, one way to spend money in order to directly support the UK community's
goals would be, once you have a chapter manager, to hire an agency or
contractor to run an awareness campaign (Posters at public transportation
outlets, radio and telivision ads, etc.) to get other people to contribute
in Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects and get the face of the community out
there, like Wikimedia Deutschland did. Even though this doesn't feed
Wikimedia UK's membership and activities persay, an effective awareness
campaign gets people ready and thinking about other types of engagement,
such as the Education and GLAM stuffs and the annual fundraiser (it helps
that people know there is a local group of volunteers not just the US
Foundation, I would imagine), and also gets other organizations talking
about Wikipedia.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Thomas Morton]

>
> > The big question is, is transferring the funds to the WMF
> > going to further our mission better than spending it ourselves in a
> > rush? That's not easy to answer..


I don't know, I think it's fairly simple :) I've always been a big fan of
spending through the startup phase (sensibly, not in a frivolous sense). We
are in an interesting place with this underspend - because the earmarked
expenditure will have to happen in future years (using future fundraising).

That's brilliant IMO because it effectively gives us a chunk of money now to
spend on "nice to have" things.

I suggest considering a "fire sale" later in the year once the amount of the
underspend is better known - literally assign half of the spare cash (or w/e
can be spared) to whatever ideas the Chapter agrees would be useful things
to do/have. I tend to mean "big" ideas here, stuff that it too expensive for
the normal program of expenditure but would be really useful/helpful to
have.

Random off-hand ideas:
- rapidly expanding the coverage of the library/reference service
(my preference :))
- Related to the above; invest in logins for some of the subscription data
services (JSTOR etc.)
- Put some money into kick-starting the education techniques
- Fund some bigger GLAM events

I don't know, people probably have better ideas than me.

But basically; the money is there to be spent, if we can think of useful
things to spend it on we should do so :)

(how much underspend is there likely to be?)

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Chris Keating]

> While there is no absolute requirement to spend money within a year,
> there is a requirement to justify your reserves. Having big reserves
> just because you didn't get around to spending it isn't going to sit
> very well.


Yes, this is the case.

However, the Charities Commission is quite used to charities which are going
through the same transition that we are.

They're also used to charities which have a very large level of reserves. My
current employer managed to build up reserves of £20 million during the
noughties (plus a few million more in local branch accounts). I'm doing my
best to run that down. ;-)

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Thomas Dalton]

While there is no absolute requirement to spend money within a year,
there is a requirement to justify your reserves. Having big reserves
just because you didn't get around to spending it isn't going to sit
very well. Transferring more to the WMF is an option, but we don't
want to end up with raising funds for the WMF looking like our primary
mission (that wouldn't necessarily preclude charity status, but it
would complicate things - it may also not sit well with the
membership). The big question is, is transferring the funds to the WMF
going to further our mission better than spending it ourselves in a
rush? That's not easy to answer...

On 20/06/2011, Chris Keating  wrote:
> To deal with these points one by one;
>
> * Charity status - a bit of a change of tack here. We are seeking a meeting
> with the Charity Commission to work out some issues face to face, and the
> objective is to submit a revised application in August.
>
> * Recruitment - We're recruiting the Chapter Manager position and the Office
> Manager position. The logic is that the senior post will have a very heavy
> input into the development of our staff structure, which is as it should be
> - while there is an obvious workload for the Office Manager to get on with.
>
> * Budget/underspend - yes, we will be underspent on staff, we're
> overspending on some other areas (for instance, the Opportunity Fund, where
> we haven't yet said no to a proposal from an individual for money to make
> something cool happen).
>
> The way we are working is to look at the long-term development of the
> organisation. Thinking "OMG we have money we must spend it now!" is not the
> right way to take decisions. The Charity Commission says charities need to
> spend money "reasonably promptly" to fulfill their objects and that is what
> we intend to do, but "reasonably promptly" does not require us to spend
> money within 12 months of receipt.
>
> We need to develop an outline 2012 Budget by October 1st (this is one of the
> fundraiser deadlines). In doing so we will take into account the likely 2011
> underspend. Speaking personally, if I think we have a level of reserves that
> is too high as we enter 2012, I will suggest we make a further transfer to
> the Foundation.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> In addition to the charity status already mentioned (which is
>> extremely concerning in its absence), I'm concerned about the budget.
>> Recruiting just a CEO (or whatever they end up being called - please
>> don't forget that "Chapter Manager" was agreed as a placeholder name
>> by the last board and shouldn't be used as the final name without a
>> lot of thought. I still think a more standard name that outsiders will
>> understand is needed) and an office manager and then letting the CEO
>> handle the recruitment of the rest of the staff was originally my
>> preferred strategy. I changed my mind when I saw how much money we
>> were making in the last fundraiser and realised that we needed to
>> speed things up.
>>
>> If you go along with your preferred strategy, especially getting off
>> to such a slow start (I know that's partly the fault of the last
>> board, and take my share of the blame, but the new board was formed 2
>> months ago and hasn't moved particularly fast so far), then you are
>> going to massively underspend on budget. What is the plan to deal with
>> that? The charity commission aren't going to be impressed if we're
>> raising lots of money and not spending it.
>>
>> On 15 June 2011 20:03, Chris Keating  wrote:
>> > Dear all,
>> > There is a brief write-up of the Board's two-day-long face-to-face
>> meeting
>> > last weekend, up on our blog: http://bit.ly/jTHRLi
>> >
>> > Key highlights are;
>> >
>> > - we're going ahead with advertising for two staff, a Chapter Manager
>> > and
>> an
>> > Office Manager
>> >
>> > - we've committed ourselves to participating in the 2011 Wikimedia
>> > Fundraiser
>> >
>> > - we did a lot of useful work that's necessary for the development of a
>> > long-term strategy - we'll share this with you guys shortly (we're
>> waiting
>> > for the notes to be typed up!)
>> >
>> > There will be more details on all of this soon, but we thought it was
>> best
>> > to share what we have now rather than wait.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Chris Keating]

To deal with these points one by one;

* Charity status - a bit of a change of tack here. We are seeking a meeting
with the Charity Commission to work out some issues face to face, and the
objective is to submit a revised application in August.

* Recruitment - We're recruiting the Chapter Manager position and the Office
Manager position. The logic is that the senior post will have a very heavy
input into the development of our staff structure, which is as it should be
- while there is an obvious workload for the Office Manager to get on with.

* Budget/underspend - yes, we will be underspent on staff, we're
overspending on some other areas (for instance, the Opportunity Fund, where
we haven't yet said no to a proposal from an individual for money to make
something cool happen).

The way we are working is to look at the long-term development of the
organisation. Thinking "OMG we have money we must spend it now!" is not the
right way to take decisions. The Charity Commission says charities need to
spend money "reasonably promptly" to fulfill their objects and that is what
we intend to do, but "reasonably promptly" does not require us to spend
money within 12 months of receipt.

We need to develop an outline 2012 Budget by October 1st (this is one of the
fundraiser deadlines). In doing so we will take into account the likely 2011
underspend. Speaking personally, if I think we have a level of reserves that
is too high as we enter 2012, I will suggest we make a further transfer to
the Foundation.

Hope this helps,

Chris


On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> In addition to the charity status already mentioned (which is
> extremely concerning in its absence), I'm concerned about the budget.
> Recruiting just a CEO (or whatever they end up being called - please
> don't forget that "Chapter Manager" was agreed as a placeholder name
> by the last board and shouldn't be used as the final name without a
> lot of thought. I still think a more standard name that outsiders will
> understand is needed) and an office manager and then letting the CEO
> handle the recruitment of the rest of the staff was originally my
> preferred strategy. I changed my mind when I saw how much money we
> were making in the last fundraiser and realised that we needed to
> speed things up.
>
> If you go along with your preferred strategy, especially getting off
> to such a slow start (I know that's partly the fault of the last
> board, and take my share of the blame, but the new board was formed 2
> months ago and hasn't moved particularly fast so far), then you are
> going to massively underspend on budget. What is the plan to deal with
> that? The charity commission aren't going to be impressed if we're
> raising lots of money and not spending it.
>
> On 15 June 2011 20:03, Chris Keating  wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > There is a brief write-up of the Board's two-day-long face-to-face
> meeting
> > last weekend, up on our blog: http://bit.ly/jTHRLi
> >
> > Key highlights are;
> >
> > - we're going ahead with advertising for two staff, a Chapter Manager and
> an
> > Office Manager
> >
> > - we've committed ourselves to participating in the 2011 Wikimedia
> > Fundraiser
> >
> > - we did a lot of useful work that's necessary for the development of a
> > long-term strategy - we'll share this with you guys shortly (we're
> waiting
> > for the notes to be typed up!)
> >
> > There will be more details on all of this soon, but we thought it was
> best
> > to share what we have now rather than wait.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 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
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New blog post: Shaping the future of Wikimedia UK

[Thomas Dalton]

In addition to the charity status already mentioned (which is
extremely concerning in its absence), I'm concerned about the budget.
Recruiting just a CEO (or whatever they end up being called - please
don't forget that "Chapter Manager" was agreed as a placeholder name
by the last board and shouldn't be used as the final name without a
lot of thought. I still think a more standard name that outsiders will
understand is needed) and an office manager and then letting the CEO
handle the recruitment of the rest of the staff was originally my
preferred strategy. I changed my mind when I saw how much money we
were making in the last fundraiser and realised that we needed to
speed things up.

If you go along with your preferred strategy, especially getting off
to such a slow start (I know that's partly the fault of the last
board, and take my share of the blame, but the new board was formed 2
months ago and hasn't moved particularly fast so far), then you are
going to massively underspend on budget. What is the plan to deal with
that? The charity commission aren't going to be impressed if we're
raising lots of money and not spending it.

On 15 June 2011 20:03, Chris Keating  wrote:
> Dear all,
> There is a brief write-up of the Board's two-day-long face-to-face meeting
> last weekend, up on our blog: http://bit.ly/jTHRLi
>
> Key highlights are;
>
> - we're going ahead with advertising for two staff, a Chapter Manager and an
> Office Manager
>
> - we've committed ourselves to participating in the 2011 Wikimedia
> Fundraiser
>
> - we did a lot of useful work that's necessary for the development of a
> long-term strategy - we'll share this with you guys shortly (we're waiting
> for the notes to be typed up!)
>
> There will be more details on all of this soon, but we thought it was best
> to share what we have now rather than wait.
>
> Regards,
>
> 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