[Foundation-l] bylaws (second call)

Wed Aug 16 02:01:09 UTC 2006

On 8/15/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/15/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that chapter membership is only treated as
> > equivalent to membership in the Foundation if the bylaws specifically
> > state this.  I'm not really sure if this is a good idea or not - I
> > tend to think it isn't.
>
> What problems could be caused by writing this into the bylaws, if it
> is indeed legally possible?
>
I really can't answer this question.  The reason I tend to think it
isn't good to mention chapters in the bylaws is because I think it's a
good idea to give the chapters leeway to organize themselves in the
way they see best.  But maybe there is some happy medium there.  I
don't know.

> > In case it was just in my mind and not in my writing, the plan would be
> > that members would have to pay dues annually or meet the activity
> > requirements to have dues waived.
>
> Regular reconfirmation of membership, especially before important
> votes, may be sufficient. If membership can easily be regained,
> expiring member accounts who do not reconfirm shouldn't be too much of
> a problem.
>
This seems reasonable to me.

> > I definitely think participation in the committees should require
> > membership.
>
> I do think volunteer or advisory participation in open committee
> meetings and discussions should not require membership. Legal
> committee membership is a different story.
>
I agree with this.  In fact, I think whenever feasible meetings and
discussions on all levels should be open to as many people as
possible.

> > As Michael Snow said, and I'll add that this is under Florida law,
> > they [the member lists] have to be available to the other members, so they're essentially
> > public.
>
> That would give people who are the target of campaigns by the likes of
> Brandt a reason not to become members. You're right that a user's edit
> history can give many hints to their identity. But when you have a
> list of 20 potential "candidates" you could match to a particular user
> ID, then verifying the member roster would be a way to complete the
> match.
>
You make an excellent point there that I really hadn't considered.
It'd be difficult for someone who wanted to "out" a particular user
(or group of user) to go through all the formal processes - to become
a member, obtain the lists, and then tie them to the user(s).  But
it'd probably be possible.

> I think people who have reasons not to become members should still
> have as many venues of participation as possible.
>
Participation definitely.  Whether or not to give them an actual vote
is trickier.  I still lean toward having real legal members, even if
it means reincorporating in another jurisdiction, but I could be
convinced otherwise.

I think Birgitte had an excellent idea to think about things without
thinking in terms of members or non-members first.  Pushing aside the
membership concept, I think what's important is that there is a group
of individuals who have decided specifically to become Wikimedians
(not just who are thrown into it from being involved with other
projects).  The board should represent this group of individuals.
They should elect at least a majority of the board, and they should be
consulted before changes can be made to the bylaws which would take
that power away.

If by some miracle the board could be convinced to allow this to
happen, then it wouldn't really matter if this group of individuals
were called members.

Anthony