In the sense of members as "participants", the world and our readers are ultimately our "members".
If one considers "members" to be "those who tangibly contribute" then I would say Wikimedia is not a "members club". Its work is not done "by members for benefit of members". It exists on a voluntary basis for the world as a whole, ie non-members (by that definition), and that is where our focus should always ultimately end up. FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Ziko van Dijk <[email protected]>wrote: > 2011/3/20 marcos <[email protected]>: > > I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea, > for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable > entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy > ... > > > > Hm, it is actually very common that those who pay a fee have voting > rights, we usually call them "members". :-) > > I understand well that those who already have voting rights are > reluctant to extend them to other people. The ideas of the election > committee deserve more consideration. If donors can vote isn't that > similar to a membership the Foundation had planned in its very > beginning? > > Kind regards > Ziko > > > -- > Ziko van Dijk > The Netherlands > http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
