I'd agree with Wierspiel. Most large member organizations have "natural"
anniversaries, to give the membership department something to do all
year. If you have one renewal date you only find out once a year if
people stop renewing, which makes it much harder to try & do something
about it. You also get the income all in one lump. January is also the
run-up to the year-end, & the whole period Jan to mid-March is not a
time to schedule extra work, as the year-end & audit already increase
the office workload. I think you naturally discourage people from
joining mid-year, unless you get into some complicated pro-rata fee for
the first year. Altogether it creates more problems than you solve. But
I'd emphasize again the importance of letting people know when their
renewal date is, and trying to get as many as possible onto direct debits.
John
On 10/02/2013 11:53, wikimediauk-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership grace period
> Message-ID:
> <CAAanWP2nWa8ggVJvEd891JpwzE+xVZcgkYTksZ6dNgheLiXWaA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Jess,
>
> First of Jan is an awkward time of year - people are most likely to get
> into debt over Xmas so I'd be cautious about trying to harmonise all our
> renewals at that time of year. If you have a bunch of regular AGM attenders
> who pay their memberships in cash then it is obviously easiest to get them
> to pay when they turn up at the AGM, but I doubt that greatly applies to us
> and I wouldn't recommend 1st Jan for an AGM.
>
> There are many disadvantages to having all renewals on the same date. It
> means you are always signing up new members on the basis of a part year
> membership at one price followed hopefully by full year memberships; It
> concentrates all your membership renewal work in one point of the year; and
> it means there is a particular point in the year when your membership dips
> which could be awkward for special AGMs etc. If membership revenue was ever
> a significant part of our income it would also mean that our cashflow was
> distorted with a spike in our revenue that didn't coincide with a spike in
> expenditure.
>
> By contrast I'm not aware of any advantage to having them all on the same
> date. So I'd suggest it is better to have them as evenly spread through the
> year as possible.
>
> WSC
>
> On 9 February 2013 22:35, Jessica Taylor<jessica.s.taylor71(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> >Richard, thanks for that explanation. I may be barking up the wrong tree
>> >but I'll jump in anyway.
>> >
>> >If memberships became due each 1st of January, fundraising/dues collection
>> >could be easier. I realize that there would be many logistical hurdles
>> >which may moot this suggestion.
>> >
>> >Is it plausible that WMUK could ask members if they'd be willing to pay
>> >both the membership from their next expiration date to the next normal
>> >expiration date PLUS their next year's dues for the year of 2014 with the
>> >understanding that their membership period will thenceforth be from January
>> >to January and will next be due on 1 January 2015. I realize that some
>> >members would say, "No."
>> >
>> >Alternatively, could WMUK ask members if they would voluntarily relinquish
>> >their leftover membership periods at midnight on the 31 December 2013 AND
>> >start their memberships over the next day? Again I realize some members may
>> >say, "No," because of the lost value of X months of membership.
>> >
>> >Final alternative, might WMUK ask members if to anonymously gift part-year
>> >memberships on behalf of other anonymous members
Hi all,
Good news indeed!
Perhaps we should appreciate that the negotiations needed to be a bit
longer in order to produce such a short statement.
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
This has often been attributed to Mark Twain, but not on Wikisource. There
it is attributed to Blaise Pascal.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal
My little internet search revealed no proper references to Twain, rather
some casting doubt that he ever used it.
I feel we would do better to thank the board for taking the time and
trouble of getting such a short and direct summary of the result.
all the best
Fabian (User:Leutha)
> Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 18:19:28 +0000
> From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
> Message-ID:
> <CALTQcccUeB-FRu5QQ_nHxhR2bwHPS7s1giLiMarj47SHvOS-Xw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Feb 9, 2013 6:02 PM, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9 February 2013 17:41, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is great news. Well the fuller announcement include an
>> explanation
> of
>> > why this took so long? It sounds like a very straightforward
> agreement...
>>
>>
>> You were on the board and don't remember the speed of charities?
>
> Do you realise just how long this has taken?
>
All,
I've just seen a rather impressive presentation from the London Wikimania
bid team. I thought it best to let you know that last night there was a
raft of updates to the public bid page at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_bids/London, including some
videos, a (draft) budget, and a fundraising strategy.
I think it'd really help if the community took a look through the pages and
thought about potential weaknesses for the bid. At the moment, London looks
likely to win: as a result, we really need to start looking critically *(but
supportively!) *at the bid.
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
How can the UK chapter support the project I started:
<http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/open-licensed-format-recordings-voices-wikipedi…>
asking the subjects of Wikipedia articles to record a 10-second sample
of their speaking voice, for use on those articles?
An example script is "Hello, my name is [name]. I was born in [place]
and I have been [job or position] since [year]".
So far, the participants:
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Voice_intro_project>
include Alice Arnold, Sue Black, Quentin Cooper, Corrie Corfield, Cory
Doctorow, Jack Schofield, Bill Thompson and Dave Winer; and we've just
had our first recording in French - but we need many more.
Of course, this isn't limited to article subjects, and it would be a
good idea if board members and chapter staff would consider adding
their voices, so they can be identified in conference calls and
recorded meetings.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
I'd agree with the comments so far, and I'm really glad to see things
are happening in this area. We really need to move as far as possible to
direct debits, & encourage new members to go straight onto them. That
vastly reduces the hassle for all, & of course means the terminally lazy
or disorganized stay by default rather than go. A DD form should be
attached to all reminders etc.
One thing I'm not sure of, having had my initial membership apparently
"lost" in the bad old days, and having been late last time, is when my
renewal date actually is - I actually think I've never been told when it
is per the register. You should make sure this is clear on all reminder
and acknowlegement messages.
John
On 08/02/2013 16:13, wikimediauk-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Send Wikimediauk-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimediauk-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimediauk-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimediauk-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Membership grace period (Lodewijk)
> 2. Re: "Voice Intro Project" (Roger Bamkin)
> 3. Re: Membership grace period (Katherine Bavage)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:43:07 +0100
> From: Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership grace period
> Message-ID:
> <CACf6BevGfWFXsbcgicD1d=73AoG_cnBRVOv0F1gRnxk3BcORwQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Kat,
>
> sounds all great! However, if I may suggest, including it in the newsletter
> is unlikely to be a very helpful reminder. I myself at least ignore at
> least 75% of every newsletter I actually open, and this includes everything
> that looks too structured (such as these fields). If you want these people
> to remain active, I suggest to send at least two reminders (as seperate
> emails) which look very different from regular WMUK mail (from a special
> email address, without usual tags in the topic, etc) to avoid that they get
> cought in automated email filters that put WMUK news letters in the
> WMUK-never-to-look-at-folder (yeah, people do that - so horrible!). Having
> the status in the newsletter besides that might be helpful though - because
> it gives positive confirmation that everything is all right.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk (notorious for forgetting to pay on first notice)
>
> 2013/2/8 Katherine Bavage <katherine.bavage(a)wikimedia.org.uk>
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Well all I shall happily say in reply is '*be careful what you wish for*'....
>> I shall consider myself to have been given a mandate To Nag (nicely, of
>> course) and (as far I can tell) there's no appetite to reduce the grace
>> period.
>>
>> To come back on specific points:
>>
>> - Now we have a separate bank account for membership fees its
>> certainly possible to set up a standing order for the fee - I'll look into
>> direct debits too and update you all with some 'How-to' instructions on
>> wiki next week. We've previously been cautious in setting this up because
>> we have had a problem in the past with standing orders with no useful
>> reference number against them, and therefore not being to identify who the
>> money came from and for what when it was all going into the same account.
>> - Yes, you can pay for x number of years in advance - we can record
>> longer terms on the database, and append notes to the contact record
>> explaining why.
>> - No, if someone's term ended due to, say resignation or expulsion,
>> but they paid for a longer period than that n advance, I don't' think we
>> could prudently refund the money (money laundering regs - yes I know, a bit
>> of an OTT application in this context, but still). So, people would have to
>> accept that in paying, say £10 for a two-year membership term that if they
>> resigned etc then the additional sum would be taken to be a donation.
>> - *At the moment* everyone who is approaching expiry will get an
>> automated email - however, as we've all identified, one isn't enough. It's
>> my intention now that each monthly newsletter email contain a field
>> indicating if the recipient's membership is current or grace and the date
>> of their term end. I'm hoping that improvements in our database hosting may
>> mean that members can check this online in the future - however, I need to
>> investigate the challenges this may present too, so I can't promise
>> anything just yet (but I'm aware it would be a good feature to offer)
>> - If you want to know if you membership is current, email
>> membership(a)wikimedia.org.uk and I can check for you! Or check your
>> most recent newsletter from this month on...
>> - Gift aid - yes, membership fees are eligible. I'm acutely aware the
>> online gift aid form is currently on the fritz and have requested this be
>> fixed - when it is, again, we can include mention in the newsletter that
>> members should make a declaration if they want their fees to attract this
>> tax relief. In the meantime, any keen bean who wants a paper form to fill
>> in, again, membership(a)wikimedia.org.uk
>>
>> Thanks for the quick and helpful responses all :)
>>
>> Kat
>>
>> On 8 February 2013 14:12, Doug Weller <dougweller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
Sure to be of interest to some of you:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ant Beck <ant.beck(a)gmail.com>
Date: 7 February 2013 21:25
Subject: [open-archaeology] Open Data Licences and the Heritage
Lottery Fund (great guidance but recommend the NC clause) - lobbying
activity
To: "open-archaeology(a)lists.okfn.org" <open-archaeology(a)lists.okfn.org>
Dear All,
TL/DR: We would like to influence the Heritage Lottery Fund to change
their data licence from CC-BY-NC to CC-BY to stop data fragmentation.
Do you support this?
I've been in communication with Lorna Richardson over the past few
months about the Heritage Lottery Fund guidance entitled “Using
digital technologies in heritage projects”. This is a truly wonderful
and forwarding looking piece of work which IMHO opinion has a
substantial flaw; they mandate that any content they fund must be made
available under a CC-BY-NC licence. I'm loving it until the
Non-Commercial clause.
I believe they have done this with the best of intentions but do not
quite see the potential negative implications the NC clause this may
have over the medium to long term.
I have spoken to one of their managers and they are somewhat perplexed
as to why NC might be a problem. I said I would get in touch with a
number of organisations, get a concensus and then get back to them
(although likely to be informally through Bob Bewley in the first
instance). This is the first step in this process.
Together with Lorna we have created a document which outlines the
impact of NC as we see it and have set forward some recommendations to
try to influence HLF to change this clause (at least for the data
elements - I do have sympathy with their arguments that the data
creators should be in the best position to financially exploit the
resources they generate particularly if this is images, video or books
(but not data (I don't consider raw photos to be data per-se))). The
recommendation is to organise a workshop (under the auspices of OKF or
ADS??) with key stakeholders in place. The outputs can be used to
catalyse an immediate re-draft or inform a future re-draft (depending
on how they take the recommendations!).
You can find the document here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nw8kwSYdcLgf_QFo5sugRgrwtDtYZomeJ4Sh9T-…
It is open to edits and comments: please feel free.
Please be aware this is primarily of UK interest. However, the
implications are global.
I would like to find out if:
this document reflects the views of the members of this forum (i.e.
can I sign it off as representative of this forum).
how we can get OKF to provide support for this activity (someone with
decent debating skills at the workshop with a rounded legal knowledge
of the CC licences and their impact on the data landscape)
which other forums/stakeholders to canvas (Antiquist/ADS, etc.)
Views on stakeholders to invite
Views on funding (HLF may not fund this activity)
and obviously critique of the document itself.
I've pasted the executive summary below.
Thanks for reading this far :-)
Best
Ant
Executive Summary
The HLF have produced a guidance document entitled 'Using digital
technologies in heritage projects'. This document establishes a 21st
century agenda for funding agencies by recognising the long-term role
that project content play in science and social agendas. The Open Data
in Archaeology working group strongly endorses this document and
believes that improving long-term access to project content will have
immense impact across domains and have particular benefits for
engagement.
However, the Open Data in Archaeology working group has some concerns
about the use of the Creative Commons by attribution non-commercial
(CC-BY-NC) licence for all project content. Whilst we see the benefit
for many project resources we would question the benefit of this
licence for resources described as 'preservation technologies'. We
feel that whilst CC-BY-NC may provide some short-term benefits it has
the potential to produce license incompatibilities which may introduce
profound problems in the medium to long term. It has the potential to
fragment the data landscape creating pockets of knowledge which are
rarely used in mainstream analysis, research or policy making. This
will be further exacerbated when automated data aggregation and
analysis systems become the norm. We believe that such fragmentation
goes against the intent of the HLF document which is clearly focused
on accessibility, engagement and enjoyment by all.
We would like to engage in further discussion with the HLF on these
issues and propose that a workshop is established to bring together
the major re-use stakeholders under the umbrella of the Open Knowledge
Foundation (who will provide legal, technical and practical advice on
licence issues).
_______________________________________________
open-archaeology mailing list
open-archaeology(a)lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-archaeology
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Hi All,
As staff member responsible for liaising with our development contractors
I've taken responsibility for initially convening the first meeting of the
Chapter's Tech Committee for next Tuesday evening - my hope is a Community
member will chair it and convene future meetings with my support as needed.
The agenda is here<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/IT_Development/Progress_meetings/12_Feb_2013>-
please feel free to add items or ask for topics/questions to be
discussed/answered on the talk page.
As a quick reminder - the Technology
Committee<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Technology_Committee>is meant
to become the vehicle through which members of the community can
review opportunities for the Chapter to collaborate in and lead on
development work, contribute to the strategy for the Chapter in this area,
and assist staff and Trustees by evaluating and monitoring work in this
area.
If you have any interest whatsoever then please do consider dropping in to
the meeting next week between 19.00 - 21.00 UTC (add wmukskype as the
Chapter staff contact) or adding your name to the list of interested
members to be kept up to date on future meetings and opportunities for
involvement.
Thanks :)
--
*Katherine Bavage *
*Fundraising Manager *
*Wikimedia UK*
+44 20 7065 0949
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Hi all,
I think it is perhaps part of their rhetorical stance that the WMF is
happy to be seen as "withdrawing support" from a new organisation which
did not require their support.
The WMF may well be happy with its role as a central organisation with
power radiating out to the chapters it recognises, and clearly an
effective WCA would constitute a rival structure which would create a more
federative power structure running parallel to their own, and also
parallel to the more distributed networks which exist within the
Wikimediasphere.
Andrew's question has another aspect: has the WMF's action damaged the
Foundation's relation with the chapter?
Indeed, we can expect a range of opinions, but the underlying question is
do we wish to rely on a centralised network of power based on the WMF, or
would we prefer this to be tempered by a federated power linking the
chapters in an essentially bi-cameral structure.
I think this has serious consequences for the Wikimedia community, even if
these may not come to a head for some time. In this context, I am
disappointed that the WMF seem to have acted by fiat, and I do not think
we should respond with undue deference to them.
As the Chapters function within different judicial zones in a context of
the globalisation of the knowledge economy, and their organisation runs in
a parallel but quite distinct to the organisation of the Wikimedia
projects themselves - which are based on language rather than geography, I
feel there is a lot to consider.
In light of this, I see the decision of the WCA to move forward and
develop its own infra-structure as something which can only be beneficial.
all the best
Fabian
(User:Leutha)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 23:08:44 +0000
> From: Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMF withdraws support from WCA
> Message-ID:
> <CADvxJeF0EbeCC4wF__rZXxjs3kfxfPRnD3YqRhma=PMq+U9KoQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> That's an interesting way of putting it! However, now that the WMF has
> come
> out against, is there any way that the WCA can fulfill its stated aims?
> Furthermore, if WMUK continues to support the WCA, will this damage the
> chapter's relationship with the Foundation?
> On Feb 6, 2013 9:12 PM, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6 February 2013 21:07, Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I see the Foundation has withdrawn their support for the Wikimedia
>> Chapters
>> > Association, the cross-chapters partnership that WMUK backed.
>>
>> To be honest, it never really offered any support in the first
>> place... they said they liked the idea, but that's as far as it got.
>> They haven't withdrawn their support, they've said they aren't going
>> to be giving any support - subtly different!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>
I see the Foundation has withdrawn their support for the Wikimedia Chapters
Association, the cross-chapters partnership that WMUK backed. Their
statement included some significant criticisms about the way the WCA has
been implemented, something that individual Foundation board members
expanded on in their personal comments further down the page.
I understand that the WCA Council is meeting on 16th February to discuss
this but I wanted to ask if WMUK was planning to review its involvement in
the WCA and to review for itself what went wrong in its implementation?
Thanks,
Andrew
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association#WMF_Boa…
WMF Board letter regarding the Chapters Association
At our February 2 Board meeting, we spent several hours discussing the
proposed Chapters Association and its potential role in the Wikimedia
movement.
Despite our initial optimism, we have now reluctantly concluded that the
proposed Chapters Association is unlikely to advance the Wikimedia mission
significantly. We encouraged the concept in its early stages, but in light
of the implementation to date, we regretfully have come to believe it will
not be successful.
In our opinion, the Chapters Association hasn’t made a persuasive case that
it will be effective. We believe that during its development thus far, it
has not consulted sufficiently with movement stakeholders. We are concerned
that it will not be equipped to offer oversight, which would be essential
for an entity expected to provide governance support and oversight for the
chapters. Considering its proposed role in the movement as well as the
demand it would place on movement resources, we believe these factors are
decisive.
Our reservations about the Chapters Association are serious, and we have
difficulty envisioning circumstances in which the Wikimedia Foundation
would be able to recognize it. That said, we believe in individuals and
movement entities organising themselves to support each other, and that
successful models for this exist.
We are acting now because of the recent call for hiring of the Secretary
General by the Chapters Association and its apparent plans to incorporate
soon.
We acknowledge that significant time and effort have been put into this
initiative, and understand that some people will be disappointed by this
conclusion. We welcome your comments.
For the Wikimedia board, Kat
Walsh<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage>
(spill your mind?)
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mindspillage> 05:26,
5 February 2013 (UTC)