Again! My reply to the list went to only one person!
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 4/18/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have no problem with the Foundation's policy that a national chapter should be membership based, but just who will be a member for legal purposes still needs to be defined. In some respects there is a romantic attraction to having every Canadian who contributes to either the English or French Wikipedia treated as a member, but that would be totally impractical. Membership can be based on making a positive statement that one wants to become a member, perhaps accompanied by a membership fee; this would also need to be accompanied by a section about when memberships terminate.
Maybe a little insight as to what others chapters do may help here. I am not familiar with Canadian law, so I can't say that this fits, but here are the bulk of membership options that have been developped by other chapters.
- membership tied to the payment of a member fee
Anyone who wishes to join can join => members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which elects the board
- membership tied to the activity in the Wikimedia projects
Only people with a record of activity in the projects can join. Others may have to be presented to the board for acceptation. => members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which elects the board
- membership is broken down in different categories depending on the chapter
=> voting (active) members =>supporting members (pay a fee but don't vote) => honorary members (pay a greater fee and vote, or don't vote) => members that are companies (may vote or not vote)
members each need to be approved by the board
members may be refused by the board (veto option)
Almost all of the existing structures have an elected board, means of election vary depending on the status adopted.
Thanks for the response. Though I find that there are practical difficulties with No. 2, I can basically live with any of these options.
It would be very easy for me to pick one of these, write the bylaws, and do everything else to get the chapter incorporated. The problem is getting others to participate by saying which option they prefer and why. I know from past experience with other organizations that whenever the topic of writing bylaws comes up people can't run away fast enough.
It comes down to how long does one wait for responses before just going ahead and doing it, and letting them squawk about bad by-laws later.
Ec
My two cents: members should meet (1) and (2) - fee payment and involvement with a Wikimedia project. On the one hand, some kind of off-line interaction to demonstrate commitment is a good idea (it could be nominal, something like $10), but on the other hand, members should be people involved with WM projects. Maybe a minimum edit count, like with the Board elections?
Padraic
On 19/04/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Again! My reply to the list went to only one person!
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 4/18/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have no problem with the Foundation's policy that a national chapter should be membership based, but just who will be a member for legal purposes still needs to be defined. In some respects there is a romantic attraction to having every Canadian who contributes to either the English or French Wikipedia treated as a member, but that would be totally impractical. Membership can be based on making a positive statement that one wants to become a member, perhaps accompanied by a membership fee; this would also need to be accompanied by a section about when memberships terminate.
Maybe a little insight as to what others chapters do may help here. I am not familiar with Canadian law, so I can't say that this fits, but here are the bulk of membership options that have been developped by other chapters.
- membership tied to the payment of a member fee
Anyone who wishes to join can join => members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which elects the board
- membership tied to the activity in the Wikimedia projects
Only people with a record of activity in the projects can join. Others may have to be presented to the board for acceptation. => members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which elects the board
- membership is broken down in different categories depending on the chapter
=> voting (active) members =>supporting members (pay a fee but don't vote) => honorary members (pay a greater fee and vote, or don't vote) => members that are companies (may vote or not vote)
members each need to be approved by the board
members may be refused by the board (veto option)
Almost all of the existing structures have an elected board, means of election vary depending on the status adopted.
Thanks for the response. Though I find that there are practical difficulties with No. 2, I can basically live with any of these options.
It would be very easy for me to pick one of these, write the bylaws, and do everything else to get the chapter incorporated. The problem is getting others to participate by saying which option they prefer and why. I know from past experience with other organizations that whenever the topic of writing bylaws comes up people can't run away fast enough.
It comes down to how long does one wait for responses before just going ahead and doing it, and letting them squawk about bad by-laws later.
Ec
Wikimedia-ca mailing list Wikimedia-ca@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-ca
I've mulled this over a bit, and here is my proposal, if it is legally feasible.
We have two kinds of members. "Voting" members can vote for the board, stand for election on the board, and the like. They have to pay a nominal fee (I'm thinking $1, but you get the idea). These members may also have to fill other conditions (contribs to WM projects? etc), as determined from time to time by the board (and maybe a referendum of voting members).
Non voting members can either be project contributors or donors, or both, but are people who don't want a voice in the operations of the board
My line of thought here is to introduce a low barrier to being involved. Now, we would encourage _donations_ (suggested donation $25?) to become either a voting or non-voting member, but the idea is to detach the membership being coupled money (in a direct fashion). Does anyone know if membership fees are tax deductible? (I'm not sure on that).
I'd like to see donors encouraged to donate as much as they can, while having members and contributors be able to belong and help out without having a lot of headaches.
From reviewing, this looks like a bit of Delphine's suggestions 1 & 2
combined, with a bit more added in.
We're brainstorming now, so if anyone has a feeling of how this might be done, though it out there.
Thanks, Gerald.
On 4/20/07, gerald lists geraldablists@gmail.com wrote:
I've mulled this over a bit, and here is my proposal, if it is legally feasible.
We have two kinds of members. "Voting" members can vote for the board, stand for election on the board, and the like. They have to pay a nominal fee (I'm thinking $1, but you get the idea). These members may also have to fill other conditions (contribs to WM projects? etc), as determined from time to time by the board (and maybe a referendum of voting members).
Non voting members can either be project contributors or donors, or both, but are people who don't want a voice in the operations of the board
My line of thought here is to introduce a low barrier to being involved. Now, we would encourage _donations_ (suggested donation $25?) to become either a voting or non-voting member, but the idea is to detach the membership being coupled money (in a direct fashion). Does anyone know if membership fees are tax deductible? (I'm not sure on that).
I'd like to see donors encouraged to donate as much as they can, while having members and contributors be able to belong and help out without having a lot of headaches.
From reviewing, this looks like a bit of Delphine's suggestions 1 & 2 combined, with a bit more added in.
We're brainstorming now, so if anyone has a feeling of how this might be done, though it out there.
Now that i've given the facts, let me give the opinion ;-)
The most important thing to learn about chapters is that they are legally based, and this subject to a national law.
The first thing to do is thus to make sure that you start off with standard bylaws, standard procedures, and adapt them to Wikimedia. Not the other way around.
On the subject of members, I am personally (but I've never "prevented" it) against tying any kind of membership to participation in the wikimedia projects. You soon end up, in my opinion, with weird problems such as "what's gonna be the threshold of contributions to call someone a contributor" (can a bot be a member?), or "how long do you have to have contributed before you can become a member?'. These kind of barriers make sense on a wiki, they make less sense in a real life organisation. At the same time, if you do this, it either pushes people to make fake participations, or prevents other people to join in if they don't have the wiki experience. With the time, you will be surprised how many people are interested in the organisation who have never edited a wiki.
If you are to restrict the membership, I would go for a broad acceptance of members to start with and choose a veto option (if the board does not want X to become member, they have to say so in the course of xxx days after X proposed their membership).
Fees for $1, in a country like Canada, seem to me very low. I always understand the idea that one does not want the fees to be a barrier for anyone to join, but again, these are people who are going to elect a board which is going to handle donations, talk to national institutions and sponsors, etc. You want people to be dedicated to the task, and not just become a member because it is so easy and so cheap. I am caricaturing here, but I hope you see my point.
You can always have different levels of membership fees. Wikimedia France or Wikimedia Deutschland for example, have student/unemployed/employed rates for membership. And there can always be exceptions made if people *really* can't pay.
Mind you, this is not about collecting money, because membership fees, unless they're really really high, are rarely the primary source of funding of an organisation (we'll exclude National Geographic at this stage ;) ). But they are a good thing to use, especially in the starting times, to buy paper, and stamps, and whatnots.
The bottom line is... KISS (Keep It Super Simple). You want people to join in an easy fashion, and things to be very clear.
Delphine
Delphine Ménard wrote:
The most important thing to learn about chapters is that they are legally based, and this subject to a national law.
The first thing to do is thus to make sure that you start off with standard bylaws, standard procedures, and adapt them to Wikimedia. Not the other way around.
I won't disagree with that.
On the subject of members, I am personally (but I've never "prevented" it) against tying any kind of membership to participation in the wikimedia projects. You soon end up, in my opinion, with weird problems such as "what's gonna be the threshold of contributions to call someone a contributor" (can a bot be a member?), or "how long do you have to have contributed before you can become a member?'. These kind of barriers make sense on a wiki, they make less sense in a real life organisation. At the same time, if you do this, it either pushes people to make fake participations, or prevents other people to join in if they don't have the wiki experience. With the time, you will be surprised how many people are interested in the organisation who have never edited a wiki.
Another point is that legal membership in the chapter depends on real names. There could be some difficulty co-ordinating real names and user names. It also muddies the question of when people stop being members. There have been many Wikipedia editors who show up, edit very actively for a while, and completely disappear after a few months. It's also good to ensure Canadian control of the Canadian chapter; that's much more difficult to do in an on-line environment. How so we deal with sockpuppets?
I think that the current Foundation's rules to allow community board members is good, but there are real problems with making it happen on a national basis.
If you are to restrict the membership, I would go for a broad acceptance of members to start with and choose a veto option (if the board does not want X to become member, they have to say so in the course of xxx days after X proposed their membership).
It's not unusual for a board to need to approve all memberships, although many that do this can delegate the function to one executive member who then presents a list of candidates to the board for rubber stamping. Having this option available can be very convenient when serious problem individuals want to become members.
Fees for $1, in a country like Canada, seem to me very low. I always understand the idea that one does not want the fees to be a barrier for anyone to join, but again, these are people who are going to elect a board which is going to handle donations, talk to national institutions and sponsors, etc. You want people to be dedicated to the task, and not just become a member because it is so easy and so cheap. I am caricaturing here, but I hope you see my point.
$1 is very low. Membership is never a big revenue source, but it should be at least big enough to cover any expenses connected with the administration of memberships.. $1 per year is barely enough to send out annual renewal notices.
You can always have different levels of membership fees. Wikimedia France or Wikimedia Deutschland for example, have student/unemployed/employed rates for membership. And there can always be exceptions made if people *really* can't pay.
How do they determine whether a person "really" can't pay?
Mind you, this is not about collecting money, because membership fees, unless they're really really high, are rarely the primary source of funding of an organisation (we'll exclude National Geographic at this stage ;) ). But they are a good thing to use, especially in the starting times, to buy paper, and stamps, and whatnots.
The actual amount of the membership fees does not need to be in the by-laws. Having it there makes it more difficult to change in the future. It should be a part of a separate policy document that is revised each year at the AGM.
The bottom line is... KISS (Keep It Super Simple). You want people to join in an easy fashion, and things to be very clear.
I'm familia with that acronym, but as "Keep It Simple, Stupid" :-)
Ray
On 4/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Fees for $1, in a country like Canada, seem to me very low. I always understand the idea that one does not want the fees to be a barrier for anyone to join, but again, these are people who are going to elect a board which is going to handle donations, talk to national institutions and sponsors, etc. You want people to be dedicated to the task, and not just become a member because it is so easy and so cheap. I am caricaturing here, but I hope you see my point.
$1 is very low. Membership is never a big revenue source, but it should be at least big enough to cover any expenses connected with the administration of memberships.. $1 per year is barely enough to send out annual renewal notices.
Why would we need to send out notices in hardcopy? I'm presuming most members, even if they aren't Wikimedians, would have the internet, and thus likely have an email address.
Nick
On 4/21/07, Nicholas Moreau nicholasmoreau@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
$1 is very low. Membership is never a big revenue source, but it should be at least big enough to cover any expenses connected with the administration of memberships.. $1 per year is barely enough to send out annual renewal notices.
Why would we need to send out notices in hardcopy? I'm presuming most members, even if they aren't Wikimedians, would have the internet, and thus likely have an email address.
I agree on the notices; the bulk of our members won't need hard copies, which will be a significant cost savings.
And as for the $1, let me nip this in the bud -- it was a _placeholder_ for some "nominal" value. I think (although I'm not certain) that "fees/dues" are not tax deductible, whereas donations are. The idea was to encourage the bulk of the money to come through as something tax deductible is all. If fees are deductible, then we can set this to something else, while encouraging people to donate in addition.
Also, someone noted that fees should not be in the bylaws, and I agree with that -- the board should have the discretion to set fees.
Gerald
gerald lists wrote:
On 4/21/07, Nicholas Moreau nicholasmoreau@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
$1 is very low. Membership is never a big revenue source, but it
should
be at least big enough to cover any expenses connected with the administration of memberships.. $1 per year is barely enough to send out annual renewal notices.
Why would we need to send out notices in hardcopy? I'm presuming most members, even if they aren't Wikimedians, would have the internet, and thus likely have an email address.
I agree on the notices; the bulk of our members won't need hard copies, which will be a significant cost savings.
Sending of notices by hard copy or electronically does not need to be in the by-laws. It is probably best to reserve that option. In some cases mailing something can help to verify that a person is really where he says he is. Some snail mailing can also be useful for other things, and receiving snail mail can still make people feel that they are getting a personal touch. That being said, and since such a detail need not be in the by-laws, we can deal with this later if and when the need arises.
And as for the $1, let me nip this in the bud -- it was a _placeholder_ for some "nominal" value. I think (although I'm not certain) that "fees/dues" are not tax deductible, whereas donations are. The idea was to encourage the bulk of the money to come through as something tax deductible is all. If fees are deductible, then we can set this to something else, while encouraging people to donate in addition.
Membership fees are not generally tax deductible, but amounts paid in excess of required fees can be treated as a donation. For donations to be tax deductible a separate application needs to be made to Revenue Canada after we are incorporated. They do ask that the application be accompanied by financial statements for the previous two years, but I don't think that it is absolutely necessary. Plan on waiting a year after incorporation before we can start issuing tax deduction charitable receipts.
Ec
wikimedia-ca@lists.wikimedia.org