I would like to suggest to move away from the 'membership organization'
question, and possibly bring that to a dedicated thread. It's a huge topic.
Lodewijk
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 1:37 PM Michael Peel wrote:
> That the WMF *isn’t* a membership organisation already is rather weird. It
> may be
That the WMF *isn’t* a membership organisation already is rather weird. It may
be specific to US organisations (in which case, references please), but it
really isn’t normal on an international basis, nor within the Wikimedia
movement (most/all affiliates have members).
Having to provide legal
Functionaries (checkusers, oversighters, stewards, OTRS members, and people
with similar advanced permissions) have not been required to provide their
personal information - name, DOB, address - for years. They simply sign
off a type of confidentiality agreement with their username.
Risker/Anne
Well, you could always do a nominal membership contribution, like a penny,
or sponsorships for those who wish to join but don't have the money. Since
WMF makes its money primarily from donations, there's really no need for it
to actually sustain itself from membership fees.
So far as requiring
Without needing to go into further detail, it is because to be a membership
organization, pseudonyms aren't acceptable; all members must provide their
full legal names and addresses. I also cannot think of a membership
organization that does not charge a membership fee, although I suppose it
is
Why would we "not want it to be a membership organization"? In fact, many
of us want exactly that, since the WMF seems to think it can lord it over
the communities instead of fulfilling its role of serving them.
The new Board rules basically say that the Board itself gets to say how the
Part of the blame here is mine, for casually bringing up a controversial and
slightly off-thread topic. But I agree with Paulo that an unelected Board has
little legitimacy, even if we would like them to have it. The most recent
crisis of confidence around rebranding makes a person ask: Why
Hello Brad,
Asking what the legitimacy of such a thing is for the broad Movement seems
to me a very reasonable question, especially when I'm not from the US, I'm
not a native English speaker and I'm not US-stuff wise.
You, however, have answered in a defensive and aggressive way, as if
everybody
This is a very, very old and tired argument. If you do not understand United
States non-profit corporations, go educate yourself about those first. If your
perspective is non-US based, you may have a different frame of mind which is
irreconcilable with the way WMF is. Take all the time you need
I knew they are theoretically self-appointed, but was under the impression
that at least until now an appearance of democracy and legitimacy towards
the community has been respected, which no longer seems to be the case.
I wonder what would be the legitimacy of a self-appointing body in the eyes
Greetings, this is a semiautomated response pointing out that the
Wikimedia Foundation Board is not elected, it's self-appointing. The
so-called "elections" are in fact nominations to be considered by the
Board. Therefore, the Bylaws have not been broken.
This is an unfortunate arrangement,
The terms of 3 BoT members expired last month, and the BoT itself decided
to extend them? What is the legitimacy of that? And why is a BoT which is
expected to be in a mere interim management waiting for elections,
presenting profound changes to its Bylaws [1]?
[1] -
(sent in reply to the original e-mail but it was caught since it was on the
announce-l)
Hi Nataliia,
I imagine the board went through an evaluation process - perhaps with the
assistance of non-profit governance experts - to help guide the board as to
the appropriate size given the board's
Hello,
I can answer a few of the questions raised in this thread.
When the Board postponed the community selection of trustees, we also
extended the terms of the trustees in the affected seats (María Sefidari,
Dariusz Jemielniak, and James Heilman)[1]. Their terms were originally set
to expire
After I asked my questions on September 4, I was sent the message
below by some role account I've never heard of, asking about claims
that have used the names of five other people. I don't edit under my
real name, but I have never used the names in the linked forum
postings.
The linked posts also
Can anyone from the elections committee comment? What is the current
plan?//S
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:05 PM Bill Takatoshi
wrote:
> How long can the Foundation legally postpone Board of Trustees elections?
>
>
>
How long can the Foundation legally postpone Board of Trustees elections?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2020#Postpone?
has a comment from April saying, "Once things get moving again,
appopriate [sic] date for the election will be decided and an
announcement
17 matches
Mail list logo
