Re. the corporate membership,
This is a very interesting development...
I appreciate the concern that we do not want to become beholden to
the will of some corporation - this is the similar concern with
having one philanthropic organisation donate so much money to the
WMFoundation that they supply a 'controling stake' of the
It is for this reason that any donations to the Foundation that
represent more than 10% of the income in that year must be
specifically approved by the board - for more on this please listen
to the interview I did with Florence Devourard. http://
Let me take the concerns 1 by 1 (in the text below):
On 10/11/2008, at 7:52 PM, Brianna Laugher wrote:
It would no doubt be a nice thing for their goodwill-o-meter but we
are so insignificantly small that they would gain absolutely no
PublicRelations benifit from it (as yet at least). If anything it
could be that the shareholders, employees or government financiers
ask why their money is being wasted on some uppity little group of
== Corporate sponsorship ==
John added this to the agenda at Peter "PM"'s request.
We discussed the ideas of corporate sponsorship and corporate
membership. Our rules currently don't allow for corporate members.
Opinions were mixed about the relative concerns and benefits of
sponsorship vs membership. Nathan suggested that corp sponsorship
would be purely for the other company's good marketing;
No - it would be good for our marketing, not theirs. At least for the
Brianna felt that wherever there were large sums of money there
would likely be a
Fair enough - see top. But this does not mean we have to drop the
idea entirely. For one, this implies that they would be giving so
much money that we would start to need them for our continued
existence. Corporate membership need not be expensive and therefore
*financially* influential. We could also include a clause stating
that a corporate member is a non-voting member so that it is not
feeling of influence, and that membership was more 'contained' than
sponsorship because of the Rules.
Sarah was concerned about undue
influence with corp membership. John suggested corp membership could
constitute a larger membership fee but still just one vote.
-- As discussed above --
As there is mixed opinion about this issue it is not something we are
likely to act on in any great rush.
As it happens there are several organisations that are already lined
up to support WM-Au if given the option. I don't know whether it is
appropriate to say whom but if you know me then you can probably make
a good guess. None of them are either rolling in cash nor have any
concern to takeover and 'influence' us. Rather - they are just
wishing to help us (and the free culture community more generally)
get on our feet. Effectively - what is good for us will be good for
If we reject their goodwill at this point they might not be
interested when we graciously decide to accept their money (or in
kind support) in the future.
I say that we don't look a gift-horse in the mouth. If some companies
want to be supporters then we just make "ACME-museum" a regular
member and be done with it. No special rules or procedures for their
ilk. (this may not be legal under the current rules however). We can
do with as much established support as we can get and we should AGF
in these corporations intentions.
Wikimediaau-l mailing list