Charity Vote
69 views
Skip to first unread message
Rob Spanton
Jun 16, 2015, 7:21:40 PM6/16/15
to sr...@googlegroups.com
Hi Everyone,
Now that we have SR2015 under our belts, it's now time to decide upon
how, and whether, this organisation continues into the future. Today,
the steering committee decided [1] to present a yes/no vote on whether
we become a charity with the constitution that we had authored last
year. You will find that constitution attached.
If you are eligible to vote, then please head on over to
http://srobo.org/voting to cast your vote. Voting will close on June
25th 2015 at noon BST [2].
As usual, those eligible to vote are:
* Those who have posted to the mailing list within the 3 months
immediately preceding this email.
* Those who have mentored at schools at least twice.
(I will hopefully be sending out a separate email later this week with
my detailed explanation of why we need to become a charity in the way
described by this constitution.)
Cheers,
Rob
[1] Every member of the SC voted for this proposition.
[2] To avoid anyone having to be awake at this time next week...
Now that we have SR2015 under our belts, it's now time to decide upon
how, and whether, this organisation continues into the future. Today,
the steering committee decided [1] to present a yes/no vote on whether
we become a charity with the constitution that we had authored last
year. You will find that constitution attached.
If you are eligible to vote, then please head on over to
http://srobo.org/voting to cast your vote. Voting will close on June
25th 2015 at noon BST [2].
As usual, those eligible to vote are:
* Those who have posted to the mailing list within the 3 months
immediately preceding this email.
* Those who have mentored at schools at least twice.
(I will hopefully be sending out a separate email later this week with
my detailed explanation of why we need to become a charity in the way
described by this constitution.)
Cheers,
Rob
[1] Every member of the SC voted for this proposition.
[2] To avoid anyone having to be awake at this time next week...
Rob Spanton
Jun 17, 2015, 11:00:25 AM6/17/15
to sr...@googlegroups.com
Hi Johannes,
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 07:25 -0700, Johannes Müller wrote:
> according to article 8.1 of the constitution all members of the
> Charity will be named by the trustees, i.e. (at least in the
> beginning) by you, Sam, Jeremy and Rich. Do you plan to admit anyone
> else once the Charity has been registered?
Hopefully I will cover this in more detail in a longer email tomorrow
evening (or possibly the weekend), but I'll try and answer now in brief.
First, a brief description of what certain terms mean: So there are two
sets of people within the charity: the members, and the trustees. These
are equivalent to shareholders and directors in a company (the only
reason they have different names is that they don't hold a financial
share). The constitution outlines the ways that trustees are voted in
by the members, as well as the way that new members are appointed.
The initial members are the same as the trustees. I have already
discussed bringing some people in as members after the registration with
the other trustees. There are a few people that we have in mind
already, and we will be talking to them about it over the coming months.
Membership is a precious, important and long-term thing, as it is what
preserves the philosophy of the organisation. It is something that
should only be given with great care.
There is also scope within the constitution for us to create classes of
'associate membership'. It may be that we use these to create classes
of membership for mentors, etc.
Cheers,
Rob
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 07:25 -0700, Johannes Müller wrote:
> according to article 8.1 of the constitution all members of the
> Charity will be named by the trustees, i.e. (at least in the
> beginning) by you, Sam, Jeremy and Rich. Do you plan to admit anyone
> else once the Charity has been registered?
Hopefully I will cover this in more detail in a longer email tomorrow
evening (or possibly the weekend), but I'll try and answer now in brief.
First, a brief description of what certain terms mean: So there are two
sets of people within the charity: the members, and the trustees. These
are equivalent to shareholders and directors in a company (the only
reason they have different names is that they don't hold a financial
share). The constitution outlines the ways that trustees are voted in
by the members, as well as the way that new members are appointed.
The initial members are the same as the trustees. I have already
discussed bringing some people in as members after the registration with
the other trustees. There are a few people that we have in mind
already, and we will be talking to them about it over the coming months.
Membership is a precious, important and long-term thing, as it is what
preserves the philosophy of the organisation. It is something that
should only be given with great care.
There is also scope within the constitution for us to create classes of
'associate membership'. It may be that we use these to create classes
of membership for mentors, etc.
Cheers,
Rob
Harry Cutts
Jun 21, 2015, 6:29:52 AM6/21/15
to sr...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,
On 17 June 2015 at 00:21, Rob Spanton <r...@robspanton.com> wrote:
Now that we have SR2015 under our belts, it's now time to decide upon how, and whether, this organisation continues into the future. Today, the steering committee decided [1] to present a yes/no vote on whether we become a charity with the constitution that we had authored last year. You will find that constitution attached.
I've voted "No". Since there's not much room for constructive criticism in a 1-bit field, I'd like to explain why.
Overall, I am happy with the constitution. However, it is (out of legal necessity) very open-ended, so the policies to go with it are just as important as the constitution itself. These have not been described at all, except for Rob's reply to Johannes in this thread.
So, in the absence of description, we can assume that these policies will be determined by the trustees. These trustees can only be held to account by the members, who would (initially) be chosen by the trustees.
On 17 June 2015 at 16:00, Rob Spanton <r...@robspanton.com> wrote:
I have already discussed bringing some people in as members after the registration with the other trustees. There are a few people that we have in mind already, and we will be talking to them about it over the coming months. Membership is a precious, important and long-term thing, as it is what preserves the philosophy of the organisation. It is something that should only be given with great care.
Forgive my cynicism, but this means that the trustees could choose to only give membership to people who they know will not oppose them. Excepting this extreme case, it is clear that there would be too few members to properly represent all volunteers (at least to begin with), meaning that the trustees would not be accountable to the volunteers. This termination of democracy is the reason why I have voted "No".
To remedy this issue, I suggest that all volunteers who are eligible to vote in SR's current structure should be offered membership of the charity, under a sort of "no contribution without representation" principle.
As I've said before, I think that becoming a charity is a vital step for us, but not so urgent that we should rush in to a bad or undemocratic arrangement.
Harry Cutts
Andy Busse
Jun 21, 2015, 12:14:41 PM6/21/15
to sr...@googlegroups.com
Rob,
Thank you and the rest of the committee for taking the time to drive the
charity situation forwards again.
Harry,
Thank you for a very well considered contribution.
I also feel very uncomfortable voting on a constitution now without a
clear answer to the membership question.
Just to be clear, we are *not* voting on trustees of the Charity as
previously proposed, but only the constitution, correct?
From the last time we tried this, a number of other points came up,
which I hope the SC will take the time to consider and respond to. I've
included a selection that interest me below.
* Will there be definitions for the responsibilities of each trustee
before we vote on them (In particular the special roles of Chairman and
Treasurer).
* How will Trustee elections work?
* Will you be rolling out a Child Protection policy this year? How would
this interact with our constitution?
Thanks,
Andy
Thank you and the rest of the committee for taking the time to drive the
charity situation forwards again.
Harry,
Thank you for a very well considered contribution.
I also feel very uncomfortable voting on a constitution now without a
clear answer to the membership question.
Just to be clear, we are *not* voting on trustees of the Charity as
previously proposed, but only the constitution, correct?
From the last time we tried this, a number of other points came up,
which I hope the SC will take the time to consider and respond to. I've
included a selection that interest me below.
* Will there be definitions for the responsibilities of each trustee
before we vote on them (In particular the special roles of Chairman and
Treasurer).
* How will Trustee elections work?
* Will you be rolling out a Child Protection policy this year? How would
this interact with our constitution?
Thanks,
Andy
Rob Spanton
Jun 22, 2015, 3:53:05 PM6/22/15
to sr...@googlegroups.com
Hi Everyone,
tldr: It is crucial that Student Robotics becomes a charity as soon as
possible in order to ensure that it continues to exist and grow.
First off, I'd like to talk about what makes SR what it is. I think
that SR is special because it blends several important values together.
I believe that those values can be roughly like this:
* Our long-term programme is more effective at developing long
-lasting interest than short-term ones.
* Delivering our programme for free is important, as this means
our participants can focus on engineering rather than
fundraising.
* Presenting content that is technically relevant in the now is
much better than presenting out-of-date content.
* Removing barriers between three usually-separate groups: sixth
-formers, university students, and people 'from industry'.
Clearly our focus is the SR competition, and I believe that it should
continue to be (until that no longer makes sense). One of the best
side-effects I like about SR is that it brings opportunities to
volunteers that they would otherwise not have been presented with (e.g.
giving resources to uni students to develop a hardware/software product
that's to be deployed in a real situation).
We're just about to begin the tenth year that SR has existed as a
group. Like any growing organisation, we have to make changes to allow
for more growth. By considering what SR could look like in another
ten years, I hope you will be able to see what sort of changes have to
happen. I also hope you'll see why adopting the proposed constitution
is essential for that to happen.
In ten years, we should be considerably larger. We currently have a
very small number of schools involved (there are approximately 3000
sixth-forms in England alone, and of course many others in Wales and
Scotland!). Exactly how large we can become is something that will
depend on quite a few factors, but I think 5-10 times our current size
is a reasonable target to aim for.
Clearly some significant changes are required in order to be able to
scale to that size. We will need to have a suitable management system,
in which tasks can be delegated and well-distributed amongst people who
are appropriately skilled/positioned. Processes and policy will need
to be established to ensure that events and activities can happen
smoothly without issue. Those processes and policies will be a crucial
part of the delegation of work.
Our volunteer-base will look quite different to how it does today. Due
to the number of teams that we'll have in ten years, the vast majority
of our volunteers will be mentors. The main focus for most of those
volunteers will be mentoring alone, rather than working on multiple
things within SR. Those mentors will need to be backed by a support
network, comprised of a comparatively small number of volunteers.
In order to get to that point, we will need to be a charity.
Without being a charity, it is currently not possible to have
conversations with potential sponsors that will go anywhere. There are
two reasons for this. Firstly, there is the obvious one of them losing
out on their tax/accounting advantages or not being able to comply with
their CSR policies. Secondly, presenting as a rabble of a group with a
poor decision-making process isn't going to instil confidence! There
is much potential for funding out there, but we have had our hands tied
for the last few years by this problem. Without becoming a charity,
there will be no funds for SR2016. The arrangement we previously had
with the SUSU has now ended, and cannot be resurrected, so charity
registration is the *only* way that we could possibly receive funds.
Currently, we have a culture of micromanagement by everyone. Since
every volunteer believes that they have equal say in what is going on,
we end up in endless circles of argument on both the mailing list in
person. This is not a productive nor pleasant situation to be in, and
is repellent of new volunteers. We have to escape this, and our new
constitution will allow for this to be done. This forms a group (the
trustees) who who are the root of responsibility. They will then be
able to delegate that responsibility to others. The problem of dealing
with micromanagement then collapses into a much more manageable one, in
which we only have to deal with branches of people in the management
hierarchy, rather than everyone within the organisation.
In order to maintain the philosophy of the organisation over time, it
doesn't make sense to permit people to just walk up and immediately
have influence within it. That's the system we currently have, and it
doesn't work particularly well. It makes participation not very
enjoyable, which prevents us from getting more people involved. The
charity constitution deals with this directly, by ensuring that people
can only get that influence once they have gathered the trust of those
who are already members of it [1]. Members can be admitted into the
charity by votes of the members, or votes of the trustees (who
themselves are voted in by the members). Since significant power lies
in the hands of the members of the charity, it is not something that
should be given without considerable thought and certainty that the new
member will bring more stability to the charity.
Since responsibility lies with the trustees, it's really important that
they function well as a team. It's the responsibility of the members
(and the trustees) to ensure that this is the case.
There are numerous legal benefits to incorporating as a charity as
well. It clearly separate the finances of some of our volunteers from
those of the organisation. It will give us limited liability too,
meaning that our volunteers don't have to risk all of their possessions
in running the organisation. Furthermore, it will make it considerably
easier for the organisation to hire people where necessary. I'm aware
that some people wonder how this can possibly work -- how can you
combine unpaid volunteers with paid workers? The answer is reasonably
easily! In fact, we've already done it! Over the last few years we've
had several paid internships, in which volunteers were paid to do SR
activities. I also hired Kat (who most of you will have had a
conversation over email with prior to the competition) to help out with
the admin for SR2015. Becoming a charity will make this kind of thing
a lot easier, and we will not have to rely on third parties to provide
those things for us.
Our organisation is currently limping along. Too much pressure, stress
and risk is being forced upon a small number of individuals, who are
essentially powerless to fix it. This conversion to a charity is the
first stage of saving SR. There will be no SR2016 without it.
When we create this charity, we will be able to take steps towards
ensuring that SR can grow to be something great.
Cheers,
Rob
[1] I've said this before, but a recap: The trustees and members of a
charity are equivalent to the directors and shareholders of a company.
They have different names because there's no financial stake.
tldr: It is crucial that Student Robotics becomes a charity as soon as
possible in order to ensure that it continues to exist and grow.
First off, I'd like to talk about what makes SR what it is. I think
that SR is special because it blends several important values together.
I believe that those values can be roughly like this:
* Our long-term programme is more effective at developing long
-lasting interest than short-term ones.
* Delivering our programme for free is important, as this means
our participants can focus on engineering rather than
fundraising.
* Presenting content that is technically relevant in the now is
much better than presenting out-of-date content.
* Removing barriers between three usually-separate groups: sixth
-formers, university students, and people 'from industry'.
Clearly our focus is the SR competition, and I believe that it should
continue to be (until that no longer makes sense). One of the best
side-effects I like about SR is that it brings opportunities to
volunteers that they would otherwise not have been presented with (e.g.
giving resources to uni students to develop a hardware/software product
that's to be deployed in a real situation).
We're just about to begin the tenth year that SR has existed as a
group. Like any growing organisation, we have to make changes to allow
for more growth. By considering what SR could look like in another
ten years, I hope you will be able to see what sort of changes have to
happen. I also hope you'll see why adopting the proposed constitution
is essential for that to happen.
In ten years, we should be considerably larger. We currently have a
very small number of schools involved (there are approximately 3000
sixth-forms in England alone, and of course many others in Wales and
Scotland!). Exactly how large we can become is something that will
depend on quite a few factors, but I think 5-10 times our current size
is a reasonable target to aim for.
Clearly some significant changes are required in order to be able to
scale to that size. We will need to have a suitable management system,
in which tasks can be delegated and well-distributed amongst people who
are appropriately skilled/positioned. Processes and policy will need
to be established to ensure that events and activities can happen
smoothly without issue. Those processes and policies will be a crucial
part of the delegation of work.
Our volunteer-base will look quite different to how it does today. Due
to the number of teams that we'll have in ten years, the vast majority
of our volunteers will be mentors. The main focus for most of those
volunteers will be mentoring alone, rather than working on multiple
things within SR. Those mentors will need to be backed by a support
network, comprised of a comparatively small number of volunteers.
In order to get to that point, we will need to be a charity.
Without being a charity, it is currently not possible to have
conversations with potential sponsors that will go anywhere. There are
two reasons for this. Firstly, there is the obvious one of them losing
out on their tax/accounting advantages or not being able to comply with
their CSR policies. Secondly, presenting as a rabble of a group with a
poor decision-making process isn't going to instil confidence! There
is much potential for funding out there, but we have had our hands tied
for the last few years by this problem. Without becoming a charity,
there will be no funds for SR2016. The arrangement we previously had
with the SUSU has now ended, and cannot be resurrected, so charity
registration is the *only* way that we could possibly receive funds.
Currently, we have a culture of micromanagement by everyone. Since
every volunteer believes that they have equal say in what is going on,
we end up in endless circles of argument on both the mailing list in
person. This is not a productive nor pleasant situation to be in, and
is repellent of new volunteers. We have to escape this, and our new
constitution will allow for this to be done. This forms a group (the
trustees) who who are the root of responsibility. They will then be
able to delegate that responsibility to others. The problem of dealing
with micromanagement then collapses into a much more manageable one, in
which we only have to deal with branches of people in the management
hierarchy, rather than everyone within the organisation.
In order to maintain the philosophy of the organisation over time, it
doesn't make sense to permit people to just walk up and immediately
have influence within it. That's the system we currently have, and it
doesn't work particularly well. It makes participation not very
enjoyable, which prevents us from getting more people involved. The
charity constitution deals with this directly, by ensuring that people
can only get that influence once they have gathered the trust of those
who are already members of it [1]. Members can be admitted into the
charity by votes of the members, or votes of the trustees (who
themselves are voted in by the members). Since significant power lies
in the hands of the members of the charity, it is not something that
should be given without considerable thought and certainty that the new
member will bring more stability to the charity.
Since responsibility lies with the trustees, it's really important that
they function well as a team. It's the responsibility of the members
(and the trustees) to ensure that this is the case.
There are numerous legal benefits to incorporating as a charity as
well. It clearly separate the finances of some of our volunteers from
those of the organisation. It will give us limited liability too,
meaning that our volunteers don't have to risk all of their possessions
in running the organisation. Furthermore, it will make it considerably
easier for the organisation to hire people where necessary. I'm aware
that some people wonder how this can possibly work -- how can you
combine unpaid volunteers with paid workers? The answer is reasonably
easily! In fact, we've already done it! Over the last few years we've
had several paid internships, in which volunteers were paid to do SR
activities. I also hired Kat (who most of you will have had a
conversation over email with prior to the competition) to help out with
the admin for SR2015. Becoming a charity will make this kind of thing
a lot easier, and we will not have to rely on third parties to provide
those things for us.
Our organisation is currently limping along. Too much pressure, stress
and risk is being forced upon a small number of individuals, who are
essentially powerless to fix it. This conversion to a charity is the
first stage of saving SR. There will be no SR2016 without it.
When we create this charity, we will be able to take steps towards
ensuring that SR can grow to be something great.
Cheers,
Rob
[1] I've said this before, but a recap: The trustees and members of a
charity are equivalent to the directors and shareholders of a company.
They have different names because there's no financial stake.
Jeremy Morse
Jun 24, 2015, 10:58:17 AM6/24/15
to sr...@googlegroups.com
Hi Harry,
On 21/06/15 11:29, Harry Cutts wrote:
> To remedy this issue, I suggest that all volunteers who are eligible to
> vote in SR's current structure should be offered membership of the
> charity, under a sort of "no contribution without representation" principle.
The underlying principal of democracy is equal investment. That works in
a state because we all have the law equally applied to us. However in SR
it's been excruciatingly clear to everyone for a long time that we all
have different levels of contributions, and unless you have some kind of
function [0] for mapping contributions to amount of voting rights that
it entitles you to (currently "showed up = 1"), unequal investment is
not going to be recognized. This discourages any out-of-the-ordinary
contribution.
> As I've said before, I think that becoming a charity is a vital step for
> us, but not so urgent that we should rush in to a bad or undemocratic
> arrangement.
I would say that it recognizes that SR stopped being a club that people
put common effort into for common aims many years ago. I would say the
majority of people I know who have _done_ SR, did so because they
wanted to help people (the competitors) out of a charitable sentiment,
without asking for anything in return. I would say that if you donated
money to a charity such as, say, Shelter, and then got a say on how it
was spent, it would not be an effective charity for very long.
[0] Protip: it doesn't exist, and any attempt to define it would be
based on no actual evidence and devolve into arguments. It would be
immensely divisive.
--
Thanks,
Jeremy
On 21/06/15 11:29, Harry Cutts wrote:
> To remedy this issue, I suggest that all volunteers who are eligible to
> vote in SR's current structure should be offered membership of the
> charity, under a sort of "no contribution without representation" principle.
a state because we all have the law equally applied to us. However in SR
it's been excruciatingly clear to everyone for a long time that we all
have different levels of contributions, and unless you have some kind of
function [0] for mapping contributions to amount of voting rights that
it entitles you to (currently "showed up = 1"), unequal investment is
not going to be recognized. This discourages any out-of-the-ordinary
contribution.
> As I've said before, I think that becoming a charity is a vital step for
> us, but not so urgent that we should rush in to a bad or undemocratic
> arrangement.
put common effort into for common aims many years ago. I would say the
majority of people I know who have _done_ SR, did so because they
wanted to help people (the competitors) out of a charitable sentiment,
without asking for anything in return. I would say that if you donated
money to a charity such as, say, Shelter, and then got a say on how it
was spent, it would not be an effective charity for very long.
[0] Protip: it doesn't exist, and any attempt to define it would be
based on no actual evidence and devolve into arguments. It would be
immensely divisive.
--
Thanks,
Jeremy
Rob Spanton
Jun 25, 2015, 7:12:43 AM6/25/15
to sr...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 00:21 +0100, Rob Spanton wrote:
> Now that we have SR2015 under our belts, it's now time to decide upon
> how, and whether, this organisation continues into the future.
> Today, the steering committee decided [1] to present a yes/no vote on
> whether we become a charity with the constitution that we had
> authored last year. You will find that constitution attached.
The results of this vote, according to results.py are:
> how, and whether, this organisation continues into the future.
> Today, the steering committee decided [1] to present a yes/no vote on
> whether we become a charity with the constitution that we had
> authored last year. You will find that constitution attached.
Charity Registration:
Yes: 27 *
No: 7
Thanks,
Rob
Lila Fisch
Jun 26, 2015, 8:47:15 AM6/26/15
to sr...@googlegroups.com
The underlying principal of democracy is equal investment. That works in
a state because we all have the law equally applied to us. However in SR
it's been excruciatingly clear to everyone for a long time that we all
have different levels of contributions, and unless you have some kind of
function [0] for mapping contributions to amount of voting rights that
it entitles you to (currently "showed up = 1"), unequal investment is
not going to be recognized. This discourages any out-of-the-ordinary
contribution.
Oh really [0]?
Let's not obfuscate the reality into discussions about how democracy does and doesn't work.
Over the last years SR moved from a system that was declared as 'no politics' and a few votes amongst everyone who 'showed up' to a system of 'if Rob can work with you'. From my perspective the charity is now generating a legally clearer situation where people the current committee appreciates working with can work together in a legally clearer situation [1]. Everyone else can volunteer a helping hand or an opinion when it is asked for. For the tasks that are left someone will be hired.
Good thing or not, don't give people an illusion that what you're trying to do is make a better democratic system, or a system that is based on contribution.
lilafisch
[0] Sounds a lot like the not too recent debates around votes for women, and other expansions of voting rights. Contribution - best interest - reason to have your voice heard - I would not throw these different points around as lightly as happened here.
[1] As much as the consequent feeling of being less of a community saddens me, maybe the honest reaction to this change might be to close this mailing list and replace it with a subscription to committee announcements.
Jeremy Morse
Jun 26, 2015, 8:58:12 AM6/26/15
to sr...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
On 26/06/15 13:47, Lila Fisch wrote:
> Good thing or not, don't give people an illusion that what you're trying
> to do is make a better democratic system
Given the number of times I've commented on the nature of democracy on
this mailing list, I don't think anyone was under this impression.
> or a system that is based on contribution.
That's specifically what I was saying is impossible to quantify, yes.
I'm not pretending there's a perfect system in humanity either.
--
Thanks,
Jeremy
On 26/06/15 13:47, Lila Fisch wrote:
> Good thing or not, don't give people an illusion that what you're trying
> to do is make a better democratic system
this mailing list, I don't think anyone was under this impression.
> or a system that is based on contribution.
I'm not pretending there's a perfect system in humanity either.
--
Thanks,
Jeremy
Johannes Müller
Aug 17, 2015, 9:37:01 AM8/17/15
to Student Robotics
Hi,
are there any news concerning charity registration?
Cheers,
Johannes
are there any news concerning charity registration?
Cheers,
Johannes
Rob Spanton
Aug 17, 2015, 2:48:20 PM8/17/15
to sr...@googlegroups.com
Hi Johannes,
On Sun, 2015-08-16 at 08:23 -0700, Johannes Müller wrote:
> are there any news concerning charity registration?
Our registration has been resumed with the charity commission, and is currently
underway.
Cheers,
Rob
On Sun, 2015-08-16 at 08:23 -0700, Johannes Müller wrote:
> are there any news concerning charity registration?
underway.
Cheers,
Rob
Johannes Müller
Aug 17, 2015, 3:47:37 PM8/17/15
to Student Robotics, r...@robspanton.com
Thanks
Johannes
Johannes
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages