[Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way

Sun Jun 18 11:57:32 UTC 2006

On 6/18/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Let me say it clearly for all of you. If you want to participate in
> legal membership in the Foundation, considering just how broadly we
> contemplate the concept of membership, you are effectively expressing a
> willingness for your name and address to become a public record. Any
> member can get a Florida attorney (Jack Thompson comes to mind) to
> represent them and ask for the membership records on their behalf. And I
> don't expect it will be possible to screen out in advance members you
> consider undesirable any more effectively than we can do so for project
> editors.
>
> Given how strongly attached some of the community is to privacy and
> anonymity, I don't know if that's a choice we want to be forcing on
> people. Certainly it's not a model we should adopt without making sure
> people have thought carefully about it.
>
No one is suggesting forcing anything on anyone.  In order to become a
foundation member, you would have to give your name and address.  You
don't have to be a foundation member in order to edit Wikipedia et.
al.

If this is such an issue, and I don't see why it should be, I'm sure
there are other states with more reasonable corporate laws.  Florida
is not a very popular state for corporations.  Even Wikia moved out of
Florida.  IIRC, oregon is usually recognized for very liberal
non-profit corporate laws.

> Various possibilities lie ahead. One is that we adopt legal membership
> with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. If this is done in
> the name of remaining "open", it's just as possible that in doing so
> we'd be departing from our openness toward those who value their
> privacy. Another possibility in the scenario is that depending on how
> membership is determined, including cost, we may find that relatively
> few people "join". At which point it becomes obvious that despite this
> effort, some people will choose to complain that the community is not
> represented in Foundation affairs, and it may seem that the entire
> exercise was valueless. It should also be observed that any definition
> of Foundation membership which is not coextensive with the community
> (and I don't see how gaps can be avoided) has the potential to
> factionalize people along the lines created by these fissures. A
> community divided over member vs. non-member, rich vs. poor, out vs.
> closeted, or other potential distinctions is certainly a possibility.
>
We are already divided between board member and non-board member.
Allowing people outside of the board to be members of the foundation
makes the gap smaller, not larger.

Anthony