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..
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 o
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 (l
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 o
>
>
> 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
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 f
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
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.
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 pro
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 f
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
ht
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 pub
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
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
> o
>
> 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 Prof
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 happ
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
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 ten
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 outle
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
>
> > 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
> 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
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 raisi
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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
