Talk:Main Page/2009

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive page, please do not edit here. This page is for discussion threads that are dormant.

Comments[edit source]

Excellents job getting this started. This looks like an excellent start and will hopefully involve as many people as possible. I've got some general comments to make with how the chapter should operate, and I'd like to highlight what I perceive as failing from the first attempt.

I firstly get the impression that people wishing to become members were messed around some what. A post from the mailing list shows people had applied for guarantor membership yet heard little from it. For this to be a success, we need the people with board positions to take into consideration the thoughts and suggestions by the volunteers wishing to help. I can't believe that membership requests from some excellent contributors went unanswered. That's not only rude, but it makes people less willing to contribute to the chapter.

In line with this, comments like this from board members should be completely discouraged in any future WMUK. Wacky suggestions of stalking from people that are supposed to be leading the project forward is quite astonishing really. I'd like to see the new board take a more proactive effort at engaging members and associates of the chapter rather than dismissing their qestions as trolling.

We need to make a definite focus. One of the major problems last time round was that the chapter was blinkered in the respect that it put all its energy into getting charity status. Start small, grow big. We should move at the pace that we are working at, not be forced into starting higher on the hierachy with not enough interest to back that up. As we grow in member number, we can then move toward charity status, but we need to get fully organised before attempting anything too big.

Lastly, right from the start we should start looking for places we can promote the WMF. In line with what I said previously, start with small conferences/trade fairs and we can move up from there. We don't need to be getting huge donations from the start, just simply putting our names around.

There are other things I've got to say, but that'll do for now. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

message for wikiprojects[edit source]

Working draft of message for wikiprojects:

As a UK-oriented WikiProject, you might be interested in the formation of a new Wikimedia UK chapter, to replace the now-defunct previous attempt. At this point we are looking for people generally interested, potential members, candidates for the board and people with experence with charities.~~~~ Geni 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

election dates[edit source]

Currently looking at sept 29th with last call for candiates sept 27th.Geni 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd make that end 26th (i.e. Friday) if nothing more than make it a round end of week date. KTC 23:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Name[edit source]

"Wiki Information Network" appears to have a fair degree of support. Will trade under wikimedia UK.Geni 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest something very neutral like ‘Society/Institute for Open Knowledge’ (avoiding confusion with v1.0, namely ‘Wiki Educational Resources Ltd’), then trade under ‘Wikimedia UK’ with licence from the Wikimedia Foundation. Try Companies House’s WebCHeck. – Kaihsu 12:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind the acronym: "Wiki Information Network", or WIN, is quite nice. "Society for Open Knowledge", or SOK (Sock?), isn't quite as nice. Mike Peel 18:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
WIN sounds nice. However it helps to have a company name, and hence a charity name, that reflects the activities of that body. Charities can adopt a trading name, if they want to. Gordo 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too keen on Wiki Information Network - not much of a Ronseal name is it? There are plenty of other wikis out there other than wikimedia and we're not an organisation promoting the use of wikis are we? How about Wikimedia UK Limited? AndrewRT 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
We'll trade under the name "Wikimedia UK", that's a requirement for all chapters. Apparently there are issues with using the WMF's trademark as our name (we should verify that with an expert at some point, but it seems highly plausible). --Tango 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia France appears to be set up under the name "Wikimedia France" - see here AndrewRT 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Germany is set up as "Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens" - see here AndrewRT 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
They aren't under UK jurisdiction, though. The board will need to see a solicitor about the registration anyway, they can clarify the legal situation then. If it is possible to simply register as "Wikimedia UK", then I expect we would do that. The previous incarnation didn't for trademark reasons and assuming they understood the situation correctly (that's what we need to double check with the solicitor) the same would apply to us. --Tango 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The original reason to not use "Wikimedia UK" was that registering a company (and therefore its name) in the UK automatically creates a right in that name, ie "Wikimedia" would have become a trade name owned by the organisation (Company). Also such trading names have a level of European protection. At the time WMUKv1 was registered WMF did not hold a trademark in the UK or Europe as it was only in the process of getting one. We chose to not put that procedure at risk. In the current situation "Wikimedia" is now a trademark of the WMF and is protected in the UK so wouldn't normally be permitted in the name of a new company (though the law would actually require the trademark owner to object rather than being automatic). Again, it is probably not a road worth making a mess of. As an addendum, btw, you only need a solicitor to do the "swear" for a fiver, not for drawing up any of the documents or submitting them. --Alison Wheeler 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I have set up companies myself professionally and have access to a JP who can swear the company formation documents - I'm willing to do this for WMUKv2 if the Board wants. This would help keep the costs to a minimum, although the Board may wish to see a solicitor for the trademark issue anyway. 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (AndrewRT not logged in)

milestones[edit source]

Wikimedia UK v2.0/Timeline

Charity Commission considerations[edit source]

Should there not be an early milestone (before draft Memorandum) to define objectives and the public benefit in a way compatible with the Charity Commission rules? (see [1], [2] and [3]) Also there is no milestone to register the company with the Charity Commission ([4] and [5]), but perhaps that is what is meant by Contact HMRC regarding tax-exempt status? It seems to me essential to create the company with memorandum and articles of association that will be accepted by the Charity Commission without modification. NB The Charity Commission has Model Memorandum and Articles of Association[6] (see also [7]) that would probably be ideal for the company, and save work. Rwendland 12:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
we can only become a registered charity once we have an income of over £5,000 - since we don't know when that will be, it's not on the timeline. until then, we can become a tax-exempt organisation by registering with HMRC. (OTOH, i agree we should consider future registration as a charity now, rather than later.) Kate 12:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Hadn't noticed the £5,000 rule, sorry. Might still be worth using the Charity Commission Model Memorandum and Articles of Association etc so it would be ready for simple registration when/if income got there. I did wonder if incorporating was a good idea with a low income - do you have an estimate for annual accounts/accountancy costs? I'm a director of a small consultancy co, and I'd estimate the accountant annual accounts & companies house costs of running a small commercial co at £500 to £1000/year. It is a shame the new Charitable Incorporated Organisation is not yet available. Rwendland 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I prepare UK charity accounts professionally and I think your ball park £500-£1000 is about right. AndrewRT 09:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, the Mem and Arts need to be written with charitable status in mind. I think we can pretty much keep the ones from WMUK v1.0, they were pretty standard (and heavily based on the models, from what I can tell). I'd like to rethink the goals slightly (I think Wikimedia should be explicitly mentioned, in addition to more general goals), but that's all. The smaller we are, the simpler the accounting requirements are, as long as we're still very small I think we can probably do it without paying an accountant at all. Once we get to a size when we need expertise, hopefully we can find it within the community for free. --Tango 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
From [8]: "64. Organisations with an annual income not exceeding £5000 from all sources will be able to seek voluntary registration when the part of the Charities Act 2006 that permits this comes into effect. We will publicise this on our website before it happens. Until then the Commission’s priority is to complete the programme of registering previously excepted and exempt charities: we are not required to register a prospective charity that cannot demonstrate that it has already achieved the minimum income." From the Charity Commission webiste it seems that they have the discretion at the moment about whether to register charities with less than £5k income and are not looking to make that compulsory any time soon! (see [9] "It will take time for us to register the large number of formerly excepted and exempt charities that we will have to register. Before the provisions that require us to register charities that apply for voluntary registration come into force, the current law enabling us to exercise discretion in relation to applications for voluntary registration will continue." AndrewRT 09:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That's correct, until we have an income over £5000 (which may not take long), we will only need to register with HMRC to get the tax benefits, which is a much shorter and simpler process (one letter with the appropriate documents attached and a wait of a couple of weeks and you're done!). --Tango 10:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
AndrewRT, do you think there is a cost-saving case to stay unincorporated until the new Charitable Incorporated Organisation [10] is available in about a year (I think), then go for that? Avoiding the need for 'double regulation’, the "less onerous" accounts and filings, and lower costs seem large advantages. It might be worth staying unincorporated for a year and then converting [11] to gain these advantages. Rwendland 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, I think the annual costs of running a Company Limited by Guarantee would be around £500, covering statutory accounts complying with the Companies Acts and the SORP, Companies House registration and Annual Return fees and things like tax returns. A CIO would reduce the costs somewhat - it looks like they will only require receipts and payments accounts - but I woud sill put aside £300 for it. You could argue that the risks from not having limited liability would be limited (pardon the pun) in the early years so it might make sense, but you would be making us hostage to the Charity Commission's timetable and this might not fit in with the bid timetable. AndrewRT 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
We can convert from a company limited by guarantee to a CIO once they're ready. We can't actually convert from an unincorporated charity to an incorporated one, we would have to create a new entity (which would require new contracts with WMF, a new bank account, etc.). I think it's best to go down the limited company route and then convert, that way we can make real progress now rather than sitting doing nothing for 6 months. --Tango 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Having read more WMUK background, I completely agree the WMUK should incorporate now and get charity status ASAP - don't wait for CIO. We want to be seem as an incorporated charity ASAP to help get corporate donations and pick up tax-payback from existing contribution stream to WMF if possible. Thanks for your info AndrewRT. Sorry I raised this, has been discussed before on email I now see! Rwendland 11:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

talkpage message[edit source]

As a UK based editor you might be interested in the formation of a new Wikimedia UK chapter, to replace the now-defunct previous attempt. At this point we are looking for people generally interested, potential members, candidates for the board and people with experence with charities.~~~~

userpage sign[edit source]

At this point needs to be big bigger than a userbox.Geni 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fazen - charming (by).jpg Please help with forming the new Wikimedia UK chapter
  • We may wish to make this bigger. I almost didn't notice it. Anthøny 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, way too small :P. How about this? Anonymous101 10:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a userpage ad banner - David Gerard 22:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope[edit source]

from IRC:

  • England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland (probably)
  • Isle of Man, Channel Islands - maybe?

Projects to inform at village pumps and the like[edit source]

Please strikethough once done

    • wikipedia

*en *simple *Cy *Sco

  • Sco (Irish)

*gd (Scottish Gaelic *gv (manx) *kw (cornish)

  • Wiktionary
  • en
  • simple
  • Cy
  • ga
    • Commons
    • wikiquote
  • en
  • cy

Volunteers needed - tellers[edit source]

We're looking for one or more people who is able to help the chapter by volunteering to act as a teller for the AGM. Ideally we would want one or two people who could manage the process from start to end:

  • receiving candidates applications by email
  • checking candidates qualify (e.g. they are over 16 and have filled out the form correctly)
  • sending out the ballot papers to voters with the candidate statements
  • receiving postal votes back in
  • attending the AGM (which is expected to be at Birmingham University on a Sunday around mid March) to receive physical votes
  • counting the votes and announcing the results

The only restriction on who can be a teller is that they cannot be a candidate for the Board. Other than that, we would welcome all volunteers.

The full details are set out in the Election Rules that were adopted at the last Board meeting and are set out here

Please let me know if you would like to volunteer to do this for the chapter. If you would like to volunteer but can't do all the parts please contact me and we will try to work something.

AndrewRT 17:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) (Secretary, Wikimedia UK; Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827, Registered Office: 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United Kingdom.)

Uk government consultation on copyright[edit source]

The UK government is currently consulting on copyright law. (website) I have started a page at Wikimedia UK/Copyright consultation about this - please contribute there if you can! Thanks AndrewRT 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Redesign[edit source]

Here are my thoughts as to how this main page should be redesigned:

1. First impressions: This page is the first thing that people see. It should inspire visitors to (in this order):

    1. Have a good impression of the chapter
    2. Sign up to keep in touch
    3. Join
    4. Get involved in the projects

Above all it needs to scream out "look at the great things we are doing!" and answer the question "why should I get involved?"

2. Prioritised: most important things at the top; most important things in most detail

3. Portal: This page, and the sidebar, should be a portal to the rest of the pages on this wiki. Every page on the wiki should be readily accessible from this page

4. Pictures: It should have plenty of them!

5. Timely: Let's keep it up to date

AndrewRT 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started the redesign at Main Page/Sandbox; please feel free to make changes. Mike Peel 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Contact us[edit source]

Should we have a section on here with details of hwo people can contact us (email & phone number) for:

- press queries - membership - partnerships

AndrewRT 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be on the main page. I suggest making the main page pretty short and only having essential stuff there. We should have a Contact Us link in the sidebar, though. Some of the things currently in the sidebar should probably be removed (meetings and timeline, for example). --Tango 19:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming "Projects" as "intiatives"[edit source]

Please add your comments to the discussion at Water_cooler#Poll:_Rename_.22Projects.22_as_.22Initiatives.22. Thanks AndrewRT 23:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"What do you think" section[edit source]

We regularly have discussion and debates where the Board seeks the opinion of the community before deciding on a course of action. These are covered in the minutes and through emails to the list, but I was thinking this would be a great thing to do on this wiki too - with a prominent link from the main page. AndrewRT 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Something similar to Centralised Discussion on the English Wikipedia? Yeah, that's a good idea. --Tango 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
To a certain extent, we already have something like this / that could do this job: the Water cooler. Mike Peel 17:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Art[edit source]

Public IRC logs[edit source]

I've started a discussion at Talk:Meetings#Public IRC logs about whether we should continue to make publically available the IRC logs of old IRC discussions. Please let me know what you think there.

Link[edit source]

Please, write «[[Initial Board|first Board of Trustees]]», not «first [[Initial Board|Board of Trustees]]», which is misleading becuse I didn't look at the page title and I thought to have been be transfered to the Board of Trustees page, with the current members (and I was quite surprised). Thanks, Nemo 13:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed; thanks for pointing this out. Mike Peel 18:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! --Nemo 19:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Formatting[edit source]

I like the way the page is using colour to mark the presentation more attractive. However, it does make it more difficult to edit!

Could someone try to change it into templates so that the wikitext is more intuitive? Thanks! AndrewRT 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of {sofixit} I've done it myself! Please let me know if you think it's an improvement. I've also drafted a section to replace some of the left hand side at Main Page/Open Leadership What do you think? AndrewRT 22:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Very nice. Which bits of text is your suggestion designed to replace? Mike Peel 23:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Third paragraph of "About Wikimedia UK" and first three bullets of "Did you know..." AndrewRT 12:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fundraising instructions[edit source]

I would advise against discouraging people from using PayPal. It's the simplest way for people to make donations and by suggesting people should use a different method we may make them decide not to donate at all. PayPal's fees, even for non-charities, aren't too high. I think we should emphasise "every little helps" over efficiency. --Tango 18:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there's any significant risk of people being put off donating by this. I've asked the rest of the board though so if others agree with you we'll change this. --Cfp 00:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC) is Wikimedia Ukraine, isn't it ?[edit source]

Hello everybody,

I tried to google keywords like "wikimedia uk" + Ukraine, but could not find if this had been discussed before.

The naming situation is the following :

Shouldn't the logo use unambiguous wording such as "United Kingdom" instead of UK ? or ISO 3166-1's "GB"?
  • if I use uk: ([[:uk:]]) on most wikimedia Foundation wikis the link takes me to the Ukrainian language wikipedia.

So, shouldn't this website be moved to instead ?

Shouldn't ambiguous wordings like "Wiki UK Limited" ( as seen on ) be avoided ?

Teofilo 06:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also that in major latin alphabet languages like Spanish, Portuguese or French, GB is meaningful (fits how Great Britain is called in these languages) while "UK" is meaningless if not hinting to the Ukraine. (As of December 2006, the transcom core langs are English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese and Japanese Wikimedia translation subcommittee).

English GB (Great Britain) UK (United Kingdom) Uk-raine
Portuguese GB (Grã-Bretanha) RU (Reino Unido) Uc-rânia
Spanish GB (Gran Bretaña) RU (Reino Unido) Uc-rania
French GB (Grande Bretagne) RU (Royaume-Uni) Uk-raine
Welsh PF (Prydain Fawr) DU (Y Deyrnas Unedig) Wc-ráin
Jersey language GB (Grande Brétangne) RU (Rouoyaume Unni) Uk-raîne
Gaelic BM (Breatainn Mhòr) RA (An Rìoghachd Aonaichte) Ùc-rain
Scots language GB (Great Breetain) UK (Unitit Kinrick) Uk-raine

Teofilo 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Teofilo. That's a good question, and one that has been raised (but not fully discussed) before. When it comes to country domains (rather than language domains), then "UK" is the appropriate one to use for the United Kingdom. The one for Ukraine is "ua"; as such, Wikimedia Ukraine should be located at It's worth noting that other chapters are at a similar URL (when hosted on a WMF server); see for example It's also worth bearing in mind that GB is not the UK. Finally, "Wiki UK Limited" is the legal name of the company, trading as Wikimedia UK. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, only a minority of chapter websites are subdomains of Wikimedia Nederland, Wikimedia Norge, Wikimedia Polska and Wikimedia Србије. The remaining fifteen that have separate websites (another four currently just have Meta pages) have domains belonging to the country in which they are based. And indeed exists, though it is a redirect to this site.
You're absolutely correct that "uk" is the appropriate country domain to use, but it's also the case that subdomains are used across the Wikimedia sites to refer to languages, not countries. --Stephen Bain 10:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The wikimedia domain is the exception to that rule. There is no UK language, so there is no way we could use language codes for this. We are definitely not Wikimedia GB - Great Britain is an island, the United Kingdom is a country which includes that island. We are a chapter covering the whole of the UK. --Tango 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this issue. I agree on the webpage - I think the wiki should be moved to We actually set up this wiki before we had ownership of that domain, but that historical reason shouldn't stop us moving it now. Wiki UK Ltd is our legal name, which we rarely use but occasionally have to (e.g. in legal documents like the chapters agreement). In terms of teh chapter name suffix, when we signed the chapter agreement we negotiated a whole range of names so we had flexibility on this in the future - including Britain, Great Britain, GB, UK and United Kingdom and all the native language variations like Wikimedia DU (which we have used). The main issue with GB is that it technically does not include Northern Ireland, which the UK does (it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) although I have wondered whether "UK" is understood by non-english speakers. We could overcome that by marketing ourselves via a "WM-NI" branch there. There are other chapters that are known by their acronyms (Wikimedia CH is the Swiss chapter and RU the russian one). AndrewRT 18:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree it's worth us considering moving to a British domain, rather than subdomaining from Wikimedia. It's also worth mentioning that gb is the ISO 3166 code for the United Kingdom. Yes, Great Britain doesn't include Northern Ireland, but the country code gb does (just as the country code GBR does in the Olympics). It's only because we were already using .uk that IANA didn't force us to use .gb as our ccTLD, after all. I'm very much in favour of us moving to the domain, though, which would avoid most of this confusion (which is, of course, because people are getting ISO 3166 country codes and ISO 639 language codes mixed up ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is now a bug report to investigate whether we can move the website to whilst continuing to be hosted by the WMF. Mike Peel 16:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a disambig page. I don't mind redirecting to instead of the other way around, but we need to keep Anything else will break existing links and that is very bad form. --Tango 17:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The idea would be a disambig page at, with a redirect page for all subpages. Mike Peel 21:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
So would all redirect straight to our site? I guess that is acceptable, but there will still be some broken links. I think the hatnote we have currently is sufficient - always uses country codes, not language codes, and where countries are concerned UK means United Kingdom, it does not mean Ukraine. We have precedence over the URL both under standard practice and by virtue of possession. Obviously we should co-operate with other chapters where possible, but we have done that by adding the hatnote (it could be made more prominent, though). --Tango 23:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I see the hatnote has been removed now - was that intentional? AndrewRT 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I was perhaps a little overzealous in my tidying of the main page. I've added it back, but in a different location on the page. My rationale is that it was previously overcomplicating the page, and this page should be as simple as possible so that it leads people easily to the various other parts of the site. Mike Peel 13:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Minority langages[edit source]

Could we get "Welcome to Wikimedia UK - Supporting free and open knowledge in the United Kingdom" translated into Welsh, Irish, Gaelic and the other UK indigenous minority languages and added to the top of the main page? AndrewRT 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we strike "indigenous" from that sentence... This page recommends translating to Bengali, Punjabi, Gujerati, Urdu, Arabic, Classical Chinese, Somali, French, Polish and Tamil, which seems like a reasonable list. There are about 60000 Scottish Gaelic speakers in the UK compared to around half a million Bengali, Punjabi and Polish speakers (each).[12] --Cfp 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
We should certainly welcome the translation of the website into as many languages as possible, we should also welcome other languages other than the indigenous ones. But I think supporting the local languages should be given a higher priority than non native spoken languages. Seddon 19:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we want the full line translating ("Welcome ... United Kingdom"), or just the first bit ("Welcome to Wikimedia UK", as is currently done in Welsh below)? My feeling is that the full line should be translated... Mike Peel 10:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes we do, I just dont know that much welsh to do so. Seddon 19:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Welsh - Croeso i Wikimedia DU with acronym Croeso i Wikimedia Deyrnas Unedig without
We are the "home" chapter for the Welsh Wikipedia - we aren't for the French Wikipedia, no matter how many French speakers there are in the UK. AndrewRT 10:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GerardM has blogged about this indirectly: [13]. Mike Peel 07:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Registered charity[edit source]

Is Wiki UK applying to be a registered charity? I've read the discussions above, and it seems to have stalled. Apart from the VAT rebates, a charity can reclaim income tax (24%) on all donations from UK tax payers. I don't know how difficult this is, and if it makes it harder to transfer the money to the Wikimedia Foundation. However, the Wikimedia Foundation is tax-exempt in the US, so that might make it easier. Csmiller 11:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we are in the process of applying. A summary of the process so far (and also a copy of the application information) is at Charity status application. We're currently waiting to hear back from the Charities Commission; hopefully there will be an update in a few weeks or so. Part of the problem is that we're doing something a bit different from other UK charities, so we're a special case to be investigated carefully rather than a yes/no based on previous cases. ;-) Mike Peel 11:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to add - although it's gone quiet we are busy behind the scenes. We have instructed a solicitor to help us with the application and they are in discussion with the Charity Commission's lawyers about the best way forward. We have been told that our application is unlikely to be rejected outright, instead the Commission will try to work with us and our solicitors to ensure we comply with charity law including, if appropriate, amending our constitution or our activities. We will update you through the email list as soon as we manage to make any progress. AndrewRT 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Typo[edit source]

It's Ukrainian. Charles Matthews 11:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Mike Peel 12:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)