The key issue here is the lack of an organized group who are dedicated enough to form the corporation. I wasn't speaking about the raising of funds. As well, what is the purpose of the organization. That was completely lost in all the debates about policy. Organizing a local bid for Wikimania would at least bring the people together for a purpose that had a tangible result.

2010/1/18 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net

brian.chick@left-button.com wrote:

...

Hi Alan,

I'm not sure what the status is, but I for one have been following this thread, but haven't had much to say. I'm still interested in MWC but haven't heard much in the way of updates lately either.

As for Wikimania, I don't know enough about it to comment intelligently. Having an organizing body (like MWC) might make a coordinated bid a little easier, no?

It would help, but is not essential. The organizing committee for the successful city would still need to maintain separate accounts to avoid miscegenation of funds. The long term interests of WMC should take precedence over a single event. Unlike the Olympics a Wikimania cannot and should not depend on bottomless sources of funds.

Ray

---

Wikimedia-ca mailing list Wikimedia-ca@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-ca

On 1/19/10, Jeffery Nichols arctic.gnome@gmail.com wrote:

There has been some discussion about things we could do, but I think the most promising idea was the creation of a Commons and Wikisource site for the hosting of the huge amount of Canada-related content that is restricted to not-for-profit use.

A Wikisource/Commons in Canada is about much more than Canadian content. It is a separate jurisdiction which has more suitable copyright laws as opposed to the US.

Tthere are many Australian works that are PD in Australia but are not PD in the US; these works are also PD in Canada. Wikimedia Australia could start up its own Wikisource, however a "Wikisource Australia" would need to reject a lot of content that a "Wikisource Canada" would welcome.

And so, we wait for Canada to pull together.

You can put me down as a potential member, if the eventual bylaws will accept overseas members.

As one of the main people who pulled Australia together, I strongly recommend that you focus on identifying which province provides the best environment for incorporation. In Australia, each state has different incorporation laws. We incorporated in the state of Victoria because its laws were the simplest to work with.

Once everyone in Australia agreed that Victoria was the best state to incorporate, people from other states helped us work through the incorporation process via email. Due to the vast size of Australia, we planned it from the outset to be a "virtual" organisation, with our bylaws permitting AGMs and committee meetings to be held via IRC. Our interim committee was not elected; it consisted of whoever was willing to be responsible for a) increasing membership and b) preparing for the first AGM which is when we held the first committee election.

Now that Wikimedia Australia is into it's second year with an elected committee, we are again looking at how to better support the other states, perusing non-profit status, etc. If we had tried to get these things "right" before incorporation, we might still be "discussing" them.

-- John Vandenberg

John Vandenberg wrote:

On 1/19/10, Jeffery Nichols arctic.gnome@gmail.com wrote:

...

There has been some discussion about things we could do, but I think the most promising idea was the creation of a Commons and Wikisource site for the hosting of the huge amount of Canada-related content that is restricted to not-for-profit use.

A Wikisource/Commons in Canada is about much more than Canadian content. It is a separate jurisdiction which has more suitable copyright laws as opposed to the US.

Tthere are many Australian works that are PD in Australia but are not PD in the US; these works are also PD in Canada. Wikimedia Australia could start up its own Wikisource, however a "Wikisource Australia" would need to reject a lot of content that a "Wikisource Canada" would welcome.

It's certainly something that I have always been aware of. With Australia now in its transition from 50 to 70 year terms, I expect that the number of works that would be unacceptable in Australia will increase.

And so, we wait for Canada to pull together.

How much interest is there in this outside of Canada?

You can put me down as a potential member, if the eventual bylaws will accept overseas members.

I think there should be a place for overseas members as some kind of auxilliary members. General control and legal responsibility would still be in Canadian hands.

As one of the main people who pulled Australia together, I strongly recommend that you focus on identifying which province provides the best environment for incorporation. In Australia, each state has different incorporation laws. We incorporated in the state of Victoria because its laws were the simplest to work with.

Canada has a choice of federal or provincial incorporation. A provincial corporation, however, requires additional continuance to do business in any other than its home province. Federal incorporation under the new federal law will be much easier than under the old law. The new law has been passed by parliament and I am waiting for it to come into effect. The government still needs to write regulations and adjust its bureaucracy, and I expect that they will be ready some time this year. The new law also makes new provisions for electronic communications. Unlike possible changes to the Copyright Act, the new law for non-profit corporations was not controversial legislation.

Once everyone in Australia agreed that Victoria was the best state to incorporate, people from other states helped us work through the incorporation process via email. Due to the vast size of Australia, we planned it from the outset to be a "virtual" organisation, with our bylaws permitting AGMs and committee meetings to be held via IRC. Our interim committee was not elected; it consisted of whoever was willing to be responsible for a) increasing membership and b) preparing for the first AGM which is when we held the first committee election.

Now that Wikimedia Australia is into it's second year with an elected committee, we are again looking at how to better support the other states, perusing non-profit status, etc. If we had tried to get these things "right" before incorporation, we might still be "discussing" them.

Under the new law most of the detailed by-laws do not need to be filed prior to incorporation. One will have a year *after* incorporation to file them, and prior approval by the Minister before by-laws or their amendments will no longer be necessary. Charitable status will be important, and the design and wording of the purposes should keep that possibility in view. The purposes still need to be stated in the corporation application.

Ray

Jeff, you have done a lot of work to further the development of the bylaws. You have my appreciation for your work.

2010/1/21 Jeffery Nichols arctic.gnome@gmail.com

Our bylaws are pretty complete anyway, they just need a bunch of proofing against the new law. Does the new law have an online step-by-step guide to bylaw creation like the one we used for the old law? If we found something that straightforward, we could get these finished enough to present them to the WMF within a couple months.

The main thing we have to figure out is our statement of purpose. We can't be a lobby group (though it would be useful to ALSO have a lobby group) and there is no category for online encyclopedias. If I remember right, we tried to make our current statement of purpose match that of museums, which sort of works. Once that is done, we have time to work on the nuances of everything else.

I think once we get the boring bylaw stuff done and are recognized by the WMF, we'll see lots of new people volunteering their time to help us with more interesting projects.

-Jeffery Nichols (Arctic.gnome)

On 2010-01-20, at 5:33 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

...

Under the new law most of the detailed by-laws do not need to be filed prior to incorporation. One will have a year *after* incorporation to file them, and prior approval by the Minister before by-laws or their amendments will no longer be necessary. Charitable status will be important, and the design and wording of the purposes should keep that possibility in view. The purposes still need to be stated in the corporation application.

Ray

---

Wikimedia-ca mailing list Wikimedia-ca@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-ca

Michael Dickhout wrote:

For statement of purpose, it may be possible to relate it to education -- i.e. such as a federally incorporated non-profit organization promoting "participatory" education / knowledge creation through the wiki concept. I think including the promotion of the concept to public schools would strengthen chances for approval as a non-profit. (The School Partners Foundation has been incorporated federally along similar lines).

While WMC's purpose and activities are indeed very educational, Revenue Canada has consistently over a very long period of time interpreted "Education" in a very narrow and traditional manner. Something akin to what was used by the Vancouver Regional FreeNet Association has a better chance of being successful under other charitable purposes.

The problem has less to do with being accepted as a non-profit by Industry Canada, than being accepted as a charitable organization by Revenue Canada. Getting the purposes wrong at the incorporation stage could just make things more difficult at the later charitable recognition.

Does SPF have charitable status so that it can give official receipts for tax purposes?

Ray

Jeffery Nichols wrote:

Our bylaws are pretty complete anyway, they just need a bunch of proofing against the new law. Does the new law have an online step-by-step guide to bylaw creation like the one we used for the old law? If we found something that straightforward, we could get these finished enough to present them to the WMF within a couple months.

The guide doesn't exist yet, though I'm sure there will be one when the law is proclaimed.

Most of the major points in the by-laws are indeed well advanced, though it would have been better if more than the two of us had made significant contributions. Some points still need a bit of work, but under the new law these are not necessary prior to incorporation. Since the by-laws can be submitted after incorporation when they are submitted to WMF becomes less critical.

The main thing we have to figure out is our statement of purpose. We can't be a lobby group (though it would be useful to ALSO have a lobby group) and there is no category for online encyclopedias. If I remember right, we tried to make our current statement of purpose match that of museums, which sort of works. Once that is done, we have time to work on the nuances of everything else.

Yes, purposes are the most important and most difficult thing left to work on. I don't know that your idea of using museums as a model would be the best approach. As I stated on the talk page, what was done by the Vancouver Regional FreeNet Association might serve as a better example. Unlike the by-laws, the purposes must be included in the articles of incorporation submitted with the application.

I think once we get the boring bylaw stuff done and are recognized by the WMF, we'll see lots of new people volunteering their time to help us with more interesting projects.

What's so boring about by-laws? :-)

I agree that incorporation will help us in finding more volunteers for special projects, and will make it easier to develop the funding for those projects.

Ray

Alan Walker wrote:

The key issue here is the lack of an organized group who are dedicated enough to form the corporation. I wasn't speaking about the raising of funds. As well, what is the purpose of the organization. That was completely lost in all the debates about policy. Organizing a local bid for Wikimania would at least bring the people together for a purpose that had a tangible result.

Organizing Wikimania and WMC need to be looked upon as two different issues, and perhaps they need to move along different tracks. For Wikimania a local organizing group is sine-qua-non, and, as I have already said, I don't much care whether that group is in Toronto or Montreal.

Assuming that C-4 comes into effect before the end of the year incorporation could take place shortly afterwards, and by-laws could be submitted to a first AGM in the Wikimania city for approval. (This assumes, of course, that a Canadian city will win the bid, but any other North American city could be made to work if enough people show up.)

Under the new law, having our purposes sorted out is still an important pre-condition to incorporation. This is no longer the case for most other organizational details. I did raise some questions about purpose on the by-laws talk page, but the response was less than spectacular. Meeting the charitable purposes test for Revenue Canada is tricky business since it still depends on a definition that goes back to an English law during the time of the first Elizabeth. The Canadian government has never seen fit to bring about a modern 19th century interpretation, let alone one for the internet age. So what else is new?

I don't agree that incorporation should be left solely in the hand of an Ontario group.

Ray

2010/1/18 Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net mailto:saintonge@telus.net>

brian.chick@left-button.com <mailto:brian.chick@left-button.com>
wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> I'm not sure what the status is, but I for one have been following
> this thread, but haven't had much to say. I'm still interested
in MWC
> but haven't heard much in the way of updates lately either.
>
> As for Wikimania, I don't know enough about it to comment
> intelligently. Having an organizing body (like MWC) might make a
> coordinated bid a little easier, no?

It would help, but is not essential.  The organizing committee for the
successful city would still need to maintain separate accounts to
avoid
miscegenation of funds. The long term interests of WMC should take
precedence over a single event.  Unlike the Olympics a Wikimania
cannot
and should not depend on bottomless sources of funds.

Ray