Could someone else get this? I'm under the weather.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eyeopener Biz & Tech <business(a)theeyeopener.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM
Subject: Interview request
My name is Lauren and I'm the business and technology editor at The
Eyeopener, a student newspaper at Ryerson University. I found you through
the Wikimedia Foundation's press room listings.
I'm writing a story about Ryerson's Wikipedia page and the ethics of
Ryerson's administration editing the page themselves. I was hoping to talk
to you about corporate tinkering with Wikipedia and the ethics of editing
pages. Sometime on either Friday or Saturday by phone would be best for me.
Please let me know you're availability.
Business and Technology Editor
The Eyeopener, Ryerson's Independent Student Newspaper
Office: 416-979-5262 x 2343
> Your boilerplate is not a complete set of by-laws. Boilerplate generally
> represents a convenient way of avoiding responsibility.
Here is where we differ in opinion. The boilerplate is a complete set of
by-laws for what we need now in Canada. Full stop.
I'm looking to the Chapters Committee for guidance as to what else is
required for Foundation acceptance right now. Full stop.
As these two are the only standards we must meet *NOW*, they are the
only specifications which should be addressed *NOW*. We can certainly
address other specifications as necessary in the future.
On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 12:00 +0000,
> > This should suggest by-laws are not important as a social construct for
> > WMCA. (It doesn't matter what they are - they won't be binding on the
> > group.)
> They're not so much a social construct as they are a legal document. As
> a legal document it will be binding.
> > Given that, use the boilerplate as modified by WMF legal counsel (who,
> > btw, are quite willing to offer legal guidance or referral.)
> The important feature is that the by-laws conform with Canadian law.
> The boilerplate is based on US law.
You're quibbling to no purpose, which I suppose is why this is yet not
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/cs01366.html <- the
boilerplate to which I was referring.
Spoke with Mike on the phone this past week about the by-laws. He said
the Foundation really has very little to do with Chapter by-laws, but
the Chapter Committee would be in charge of approving any.
Delphine: I guess that puts you on the spot. Would there be any required
modifications to the Canadian incorporation boilerplate by-laws example?
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 10:33 +0000,
> Amgine wrote:
> >> If you feel the need to consult a lawyer for advice about any of
> >> things nobody is stopping you from doing so at your own expense.
> > Actually, if you look back at the header of my message, I did. The
> > message was to Michael Godwin.
> With all due respect to Mike, he is a US lawyer, so I do not expect
> he would be familiar with Canadian corporate or charitable law.
With all due respect to you,
* He is a lawyer.
* He is a lawyer for non-profit.
* He is a lawyer for a non-profit with 501(c)3 status.
As I've helped 3 different non-profit organizations achieve that status
in the USA, and examined the far more sane Canadian process, I have a
suspicion M. Godwin would be an extremely substantial adviser.
However, and I'd appreciate if you would note this, I asked him what the
Foundation would require as modifications to what is the extant example
under the law as it exists now. Not to help us incorporate.
Personally, I'm fairly certain there are justifications for delaying the
incorporation of the chapter. But so far as I have read there are no
sufficient arguments for doing so.
[resent from correct address]
> From: Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau(a)gmail.com>
> It could work either way, it could show Canada's really, really
> interested, or that Canada's really, really not cohesive in its bid
Incidentally, whatever you guys decide, you are both welcome to help and
participate, and to use WM 2011 as a platform to recruit/help build WM
Canada if it is held in Montreal.
> Montreal claims to have interest from the federal, provincial, and
> municipal governments for funding it. If this is indeed true, and the
> Montreal team has legitimately got preliminary interest, I say that's
> an immediate sign they should run the show, as opposed to Toronto.
It is true, but it should not be overstated either: I am going to go
out on a limb here and admit that I expect that any financial support
will be welcome, but small (a few tens of thousands at most). It's not
insignificant, but it's not going to make it any less important to get
good corporate and nonprofit backing from the private sector.
What *does* help is that I have a small army of professional lobbyists
currently working the political scene with success (they're from the
Palais des Congres); and I have had confirmed that I'll have a letter of
official invitation from both Harper's and Charest's offices within a
week or two, and I'm meeting someone from the Ministere de la Culture
next week to talk monies.
-- Marc / Coren
(sans frais) +1 800 210 0923
(portable) +1 514 691 2677
> If you feel the need to consult a lawyer for advice about any of these
> things nobody is stopping you from doing so at your own expense.
Actually, if you look back at the header of my message, I did. The
message was to Michael Godwin.
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 12:00 +0000,
> Primarily, lack of interest.
> Putting by-laws into the necessary language is not that difficult.
> Getting people to express themselves on what they want in the by-laws is
> more difficult. Last summer when Jeffery and I were trying to hammer
> something together the silence from others was deafening.
This should suggest by-laws are not important as a social construct for
WMCA. (It doesn't matter what they are - they won't be binding on the
Given that, use the boilerplate as modified by WMF legal counsel (who,
btw, are quite willing to offer legal guidance or referral.)
In a nutshell, what is stopping the by-laws from progerssing further?
Send us your Hotmail stories and be featured in our newsletter