On the first thing. Couldn't a new board change the mission in theory, via an EGM or some such? Define the people it's trying to help as its membership... It wasn't a serious offer to stand. I was just pointing out the risks of having large balances.
On the 20% thing, I accept that some of the stuff the staff do will be non-admin. But you still have to think about our relative efficiency compared to the WMF. Suppose for the simplicity that we were giving all our money to the WMF. Then clearly spending 20% on staff wouldn't be acceptable as the WMF could run their fundraiser themselves for almost zero marginal cost (they're already doing it) and get the same income. Once you take out the chunk we're giving to the WMF the ratio isn't very good even if the chapter manager is entirely non administrative. -----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Turvey Sent: 27 February 2011 18:58 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] job descriptions Thanks for your input, Tom - you raise some important points. > And a question for whoever understands company law: would the > following be possible in theory: > > 1) I find a group of 5 people who want to stand for the board on a > platform of giving back the entire earnings of WMUK to the membership... I would personally very much welcome your experience and approach back on the board! However, I'm afraid, no, the plan wouldn't work. Wiki UK is founded as a company limited by guarantee which means its funds can only be used to finance its mission. Unlike companies limited by shares, the company is not able to pay dividends to members or benefits to board members. You could, for instance, stand on a platform of donating the entire funds to the Foundation, if you wanted, and abandoning the plan to professionalise the chapter and employ staff. > A question for the treasurer while I'm paying some attention to this stuff: > what interest rate are we currently earning on our half million? If > they're less than around 4% or something how do you justify this. We are currently earning only 0.20% on cash held in our current account and no interest on cash while it is in PayPal. Most of the money is only intended to be there for a short time, but we are looking into investing the balance that will be held on reserve. Having said that, 4% is a very generous rate at the moment, even for half a million. > This is yet another reason > why our current level of income is a bad thing not a good one. I was > sceptical about entering the first fundraiser before we were ready. > Given we failed to spend that money we clearly weren't, so doing the > second one really wasn't in anyone's best interest. I'm inclined to agree - which is why I want to give any surplus funds we dont manage to use effectively to the Foundation. It's interesting that the history of WMDE is quite similar to ours in that they also underestimated their income and significantly underspent in the first few years. > Even assuming the WMF is > completely efficient, that's over 20% of expenditure going to admin. The admin to project expenses ratio, whilst crude, is one that a lot of people look at, particularly the Charity Commission. Personally, I'm not sure the chapter manager, if he focusses on the things I've started to list, should be counted as "admin". On that basis, we could end up with quite a healthy ratio - which reflects the fact that nearly everything is and will still be done by volunteers. Something like the GLAM-WIKI or British Library events had very little overhead expense. On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Tom Holden <tom.hol...@economics.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > I am looking at the budget. £123k on admin, £455k on programme > expenditure, of which £290k is going straight to the WMF anyway. Even > assuming the WMF is completely efficient, that's over 20% of expenditure > going to admin. > > http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2011_Budget > > Looking at income is irrelevant since we seem to be consistently > missing our expenditure targets and thus ending the year with money > left over. (If the £455k target is missed as seems likely then the > admin expenditure chunk will be higher still.) > > A question for the treasurer while I'm paying some attention to this stuff: > what interest rate are we currently earning on our half million? If > they're less than around 4% or something how do you justify this. > > And a question for whoever understands company law: would the > following be possible in theory: > > 1) I find a group of 5 people who want to stand for the board on > a platform of giving back the entire earnings of WMUK to the > membership > > 2) We stand, we're voted in because everyone there wanted £500 > (which is about our assets to members ratio at the moment). > > 3) We change the constitution as necessary, getting it past an > EGM again because people want £500. > > 4) We do it. > > With our current company status I'm worried this might be possible. > And obviously the more money we have sitting in our bank account the > more tempting this starts to look for our membership. This is yet > another reason why our current level of income is a bad thing not a > good one. I was sceptical about entering the first fundraiser before > we were ready. Given we failed to spend that money we clearly weren't, > so doing the second one really wasn't in anyone's best interest. > > > > Tom > > > > From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Roger > Bamkin > Sent: 27 February 2011 17:12 > To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] job descriptions > > > > Tom, you are not comparing next years budget are you with last years > activity? Staff paid for last year was one person part time I > understood and income was around 500,000 pounds. That seems pretty > efficient to me or am I missing something? > > > > regards > > Roger > > On 27 February 2011 16:53, Tom Holden <tom.hol...@economics.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > > Gulp. If people knew WMUK's overhead to activity ratio do you think > they'd still be happy to donate? Or a similar question, do you think a > £1 given to WMUK does more for the interests of UK Wikimedians than £1 > direct to Wikimedia? I note that the bulk of your programme > expenditure is going straight to the WMF anyway, so all that's > happening is that the money's being processed by WMUK's (less > efficient, due to lower scale) system, then going to the WMF (with > additional overheads from them). Indeed it seems that it's only going > to their international projects which is arguably further from the interests > of UK Wikimedians than server/code expenditure is. > > I don't know the details of what you're doing at the moment so maybe > I'm completely wrong. But my distinct impression at the moment is that > UK donations would be much more effective if they went straight to the > WMF then groups of users petitioned them for money for UK specific > projects. Perhaps something like WMUK could intermediate, but it could > certainly be a much lighter organisation. > > Admittedly charitable status if it ever arrives will change this > story, providing the gains from gift aid outweigh the relative > inefficiencies of WMUK. Even this isn't totally obvious at the moment, > particularly as unclear whether the things WMUK is spending money on > are more useful to the average user of Wikimedia projects than what the WMF > project is spending money on. > > I hope to hear some serious arguments about the chapter's efficiency > at the next AGM. I also hope for the chance for some significant input > from the membership on expenditure priorities. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew > Turvey > Sent: 27 February 2011 15:57 > To: WMUK-L > Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] job descriptions > > In advance of the board meeting next Tuesday, I've started drafting up > some job descriptions on the wiki at > http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Job_Descriptions for the new members of > staff that we are recruiting. > > Please add your contributions on the main and talk page to develop this. > > Many thanks, > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > -- > > Roger Bamkin > > (aka Victuallers) > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
