This is a general comment, but having finally gotten around to reading some of the mailing list posts to this list (wikimedia-dc) from the past few days, a lot of the tone of various aspects of this proposed chapter, etc. strikes me as stiflingly and wholly unnecessarily formalistic. I appreciate organization and I appreciate passion, but I think there are some people who are much more interested in mock government and rules of order than a more laid-back approach where the goal is that people who enjoy free culture/wikis/etc. hang out and geek out.
Perhaps I'm alone in these feelings and perhaps I simply need to stop associating with whatever Wikimedia DC becomes, if the general consensus is that things are headed in the right direction. I do wonder if others agree, though.
Does Wikimedia DC have a statement of principles or anything like that at this point?
MZMcBride
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:00 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This is a general comment, but having finally gotten around to reading some of the mailing list posts to this list (wikimedia-dc) from the past few days, a lot of the tone of various aspects of this proposed chapter, etc. strikes me as stiflingly and wholly unnecessarily formalistic. I appreciate organization and I appreciate passion, but I think there are some people who are much more interested in mock government and rules of order than a more laid-back approach where the goal is that people who enjoy free culture/wikis/etc. hang out and geek out.
Perhaps I'm alone in these feelings and perhaps I simply need to stop associating with whatever Wikimedia DC becomes, if the general consensus is that things are headed in the right direction. I do wonder if others agree, though.
Does Wikimedia DC have a statement of principles or anything like that at this point?
MZMcBride
As someone who is complicit in this formality, I have to say I agree 100% with you. I don't like bureaucracy. And let me say, if I have the honor of being Chairman of the Wikimania Planning Committee, I will not run it like a committee. I will run it like a business (without the profiteering part), because up to this point, I considered Wikimania to be like a start-up business.
Unfortunately when you start a corporation as we did here, you have to engage in a lot of bureaucratic hullabaloo. I think that's why we delayed making one until we had to (we are hosting Wikimania, after all), and my interest is getting it done with so that we can get down to the real business. (That's why I am somewhat disappointed that we have had a lot of debate over things that should be commonsense matters, like figuring out how members will give us ten bucks so we can keep the lights on.) That's what all the discussion is about -- setting up the corporate structure. After that, we will have only four of these bullshit meetings a year, and even then we can tie them into regular social meetups. I'm not the President and I respect Katie's vision of the organization, but as I see it, Wikimedia DC is a vehicle for things that require a lot of planning and that's it. We won't have to get the board together to agree to hold a meetup, but we will to figure out how to raise and spend the $300,000 Wikimania will cost.
I'm very much sympathetic with your argument and I hope to get this back-end business done as soon as possible, but it was inevitable that we would have to do stuff like this.
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:19 PM, James Hare jamesmhare@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately when you start a corporation as we did here, you have to engage in a lot of bureaucratic hullabaloo.
So a corporation was started? Why?
//Ed
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:19 PM, James Hare jamesmhare@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately when you start a corporation as we did here, you have to engage in a lot of bureaucratic hullabaloo.
So a corporation was started? Why?
So that we can handle the financials without assuming personal liability for the entire cost of the conference.
Kirill
2011/5/10 Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:19 PM, James Hare jamesmhare@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately when you start a corporation as we did here, you have to engage in a lot of bureaucratic hullabaloo.
So a corporation was started? Why?
So that we can handle the financials without assuming personal liability for the entire cost of the conference.
And because no corporate sponsor is going to trust an individual person with the money.
Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:19 PM, James Hare jamesmhare@gmail.com wrote:
And because no corporate sponsor is going to trust an individual person with the money.
Yes, I completely understand that. I was just wondering why the Wikimedia Foundation wasn't used.
//Ed
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:19 PM, James Hare jamesmhare@gmail.com wrote:
for things that require a lot of planning and that's it. We won't have to get the board together to agree to hold a meetup, but we will to figure out how to raise and spend the $300,000 Wikimania will cost.
So do we know for a fact that a local chapter has to figure this out, and it can't be done under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation?
Sorry for the very basic questions...
//Ed
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:19 PM, James Hare jamesmhare@gmail.com wrote:
for things that require a lot of planning and that's it. We won't have to get the board together to agree to hold a meetup, but we will to figure out how to raise and spend the $300,000 Wikimania will cost.
So do we know for a fact that a local chapter has to figure this out, and it can't be done under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation?
Well, yes; we (for some vague definition of "we", roughly corresponding to the Wikimania bid team) have been awarded the bid, and it's now up to us to somehow make the conference happen.
The Foundation will help out as it's able, I'm sure; but it has never taken legal responsibility for funding/organizing/etc. the previous Wikimania conferences, and is quite unlikely to do so now, for a variety of legal and financial reasons.
Kirill
2011/5/10 Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com:
The Foundation will help out as it's able, I'm sure; but it has never taken legal responsibility for funding/organizing/etc. the previous Wikimania conferences, and is quite unlikely to do so now, for a variety of legal and financial reasons.
Ok, I didn't know that the Wikimedia Foundation hasn't assumed legal responsibility for previous Wikimania conferences. It seems odd to me, given that Wikimania is the premier event for the foundation. But if that is really the case, it makes perfect sense why there was this rush to incorporate as a non-profit.
//Ed
Ed Summers wrote:
2011/5/10 Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com:
The Foundation will help out as it's able, I'm sure; but it has never taken legal responsibility for funding/organizing/etc. the previous Wikimania conferences, and is quite unlikely to do so now, for a variety of legal and financial reasons.
Ok, I didn't know that the Wikimedia Foundation hasn't assumed legal responsibility for previous Wikimania conferences. It seems odd to me, given that Wikimania is the premier event for the foundation. But if that is really the case, it makes perfect sense why there was this rush to incorporate as a non-profit.
Yes, it's an odd situation. The Wikimedia Foundation hosts Wikimania's website(s), owns the Wikimania trademark/logos, does the publicity for Wikimania (to a large extent, at least), and sends quite a bit of its staff to the conference, but does not actively involve itself in preparing/organizing the conference. It's bizarre.
MZMcBride
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Yes, it's an odd situation. The Wikimedia Foundation hosts Wikimania's website(s), owns the Wikimania trademark/logos, does the publicity for Wikimania (to a large extent, at least), and sends quite a bit of its staff to the conference, but does not actively involve itself in preparing/organizing the conference. It's bizarre.
Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, etc. etc.
Based on my knowledge of corporate liability issues, it makes perfect sense for the WMF to stay as far away as possible from hosting "real-life" events. If someone slips and breaks their neck at a Wikimania, the organizing entity could potentially be liable for vast sums of money. In our case, that's not a big deal; Wikimedia DC will have relatively few assets at that point. In the WMF's case, on the other hand, they have a great many assets -- and very valuable ones, at that -- that would be at risk in a lawsuit.
Kirill
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Ed Summers wrote:
2011/5/10 Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com:
The Foundation will help out as it's able, I'm sure; but it has never taken legal responsibility for funding/organizing/etc. the previous Wikimania conferences, and is quite unlikely to do so now, for a variety of legal and financial reasons.
Ok, I didn't know that the Wikimedia Foundation hasn't assumed legal responsibility for previous Wikimania conferences. It seems odd to me, given that Wikimania is the premier event for the foundation. But if that is really the case, it makes perfect sense why there was this rush to incorporate as a non-profit.
Yes, it's an odd situation. The Wikimedia Foundation hosts Wikimania's website(s), owns the Wikimania trademark/logos, does the publicity for Wikimania (to a large extent, at least), and sends quite a bit of its staff to the conference, but does not actively involve itself in preparing/organizing the conference. It's bizarre.
As far as I know, the only reason this is so is "tradition"; I assume the first cities to bid really wanted to do it themselves, and WMF only had a handful of staff anyhow--the groups putting it on wanted it to be a community-organized conference. (I try to stay far away from anything resembling event planning and don't share this desire, but I appreciate that others do.)
Now it's still a community-organized conference--though WMF does "actively involve" itself, having a fairly large chunk of both funds and staff time allocated to assisting. (Please do ask for it when needed.) But for WMF to take on the final responsibility for managing and funding Wikimania, it would also want more control--final say over the venue and arrangements, staff or a designated group handling sponsorships, etc. (I doubt it would be an annual event if this were the case.)
-Kat
In 2006 & 2008 there was no local Wiki-related corporation behind the org team. Those years the host venues were themselves non-profits with experience receiving and managing donations and grants - who donated staff time to helping with logistics - avoiding the need for the local team to incorporate.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Yes, it's an odd situation. The Wikimedia Foundation hosts Wikimania's website(s)... but does not actively involve itself in preparing/organizing the conference.
Some years (2006, 2008, 2010) WMF has been involved in prep/organizing, via contractors, staff, and handling contracts and funds. Most years, it has helped in some way - say, with receiving and distributing some of the sponsorships and travel scholarships. If you ask for support, as Kat says, you'll likely get it.
Kat Walsh wrote:
As far as I know, the only reason this is so is "tradition"... the groups putting it on wanted it to be a community-organized conference.
Yes. It began as the community's annual event, with the Foundation as part of the community, and has largely remained that way. This gives every year a very different flavor from the others, something I quite like (and unlike most other annual events I've been to more than once).
SJ
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
2011/5/10 Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com:
The Foundation will help out as it's able, I'm sure; but it has never
taken
legal responsibility for funding/organizing/etc. the previous Wikimania conferences, and is quite unlikely to do so now, for a variety of legal
and
financial reasons.
Ok, I didn't know that the Wikimedia Foundation hasn't assumed legal responsibility for previous Wikimania conferences. It seems odd to me, given that Wikimania is the premier event for the foundation. But if that is really the case, it makes perfect sense why there was this rush to incorporate as a non-profit.
To be fair, the WMF probably wouldn't be effective at running a non-US Wikimania even if it wanted to, as its 501(c)(3) status is meaningless elsewhere in the world.
Kirill
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:00 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This is a general comment, but having finally gotten around to reading some of the mailing list posts to this list (wikimedia-dc) from the past few days, a lot of the tone of various aspects of this proposed chapter, etc. strikes me as stiflingly and wholly unnecessarily formalistic. I appreciate organization and I appreciate passion, but I think there are some people who are much more interested in mock government and rules of order than a more laid-back approach where the goal is that people who enjoy free culture/wikis/etc. hang out and geek out.
There are several factors at work here, I think:
1. A lot of organizational and procedural discussion that, in most non-profit organizations, takes place behind the scenes is here happening on a widely-subscribed mailing list. While this is good in many ways -- transparency, increased public input, etc. -- it does have the effect of over-exposing more "casual" participants to the sausage-making process. Some of this will likely be mitigated with the introduction of one or more mailing lists intended specifically for organizational matters, which will allow this list to cater more to those who want to "hang out and geek out".
2. In a broader sense, the organization aspects of running a non-profit corporation are meant to support the normal activities of the Wikimedians in this area rather than replacing them. The rules of order and such are indeed necessary -- we are running a legal entity that needs to comply with various IRS requirements, and will be handling considerable sums of money for Wikimania 2012 -- but they are primarily a matter for the Board and Officers to deal with on a day-to-day basis; once we get past this initial stage of forming the chapter, I expect that most participants will be able to avoid the procedures entirely, with the exception of the formal membership meetings each year. (Of course, anyone who *likes* the procedure will certainly be able to take part in it; but I suspect that this applies to a small minority of subscribers here.)
3. On a more basic level, a certain degree of over-enthusiasm is natural when people start doing a new and exciting thing. I'm sure that things will have become somewhat less frenetic in a few months, regardless of anything else.
Perhaps I'm alone in these feelings and perhaps I simply need to stop
associating with whatever Wikimedia DC becomes, if the general consensus is that things are headed in the right direction. I do wonder if others agree, though.
Does Wikimedia DC have a statement of principles or anything like that at this point?
I'm not sure that a statement of principles per se, beyond those already set out in the incorporation documents and the bylaws, would be particularly useful. What would be more valuable, in my opinion, is some sort of strategic plan -- in other words, where are we going, as an organization, in the next few years? This will obviously take time to develop, however.
Kirill
On May 10, 2011, at 8:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
I appreciate organization and I appreciate passion, but I think there are some people who are much more interested in mock government and rules of order than a more laid-back approach where the goal is that people who enjoy free culture/wikis/etc. hang out and geek out.
I don't think there's anything stopping anyone from doing that. Case in point, Saturday's meeting had a number of people who simply showed up at 5:30 for dinner and geeked out like we've done at the past 16 meetups.
-Dan
Just want to say that, from my experience with newly-formed organizations, the bureaucratic hullaballoo is common in the early phases to establish the organization on solid ground and ensure its ability to survive legally. Once an organization is established, its operations often end up nicely reflecting the attitudes of those involved, be they more formal or casual.
So I hope you all bear with us while we get everything going :)
Sincerely, N Michael Bashour
Sent from my iPhone
On May 10, 2011, at 8:00 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This is a general comment, but having finally gotten around to reading some of the mailing list posts to this list (wikimedia-dc) from the past few days, a lot of the tone of various aspects of this proposed chapter, etc. strikes me as stiflingly and wholly unnecessarily formalistic. I appreciate organization and I appreciate passion, but I think there are some people who are much more interested in mock government and rules of order than a more laid-back approach where the goal is that people who enjoy free culture/wikis/etc. hang out and geek out.
Perhaps I'm alone in these feelings and perhaps I simply need to stop associating with whatever Wikimedia DC becomes, if the general consensus is that things are headed in the right direction. I do wonder if others agree, though.
Does Wikimedia DC have a statement of principles or anything like that at this point?
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
For what its worth, following corporate formalities is one of the things that courts like to see if they're being asked to pierce the corporate veil and ignore limited liability.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so take that with a grain of salt, but when dealing with actual legal machinery of a sovereign nation, it might be better to be on the safe side instead of being anti-mock government on sheer principle.
-tz
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Nicholas Bashour <nicholasbashour@gmail.com
wrote:
Just want to say that, from my experience with newly-formed organizations, the bureaucratic hullaballoo is common in the early phases to establish the organization on solid ground and ensure its ability to survive legally. Once an organization is established, its operations often end up nicely reflecting the attitudes of those involved, be they more formal or casual.
So I hope you all bear with us while we get everything going :)
Sincerely, N Michael Bashour
Sent from my iPhone
On May 10, 2011, at 8:00 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This is a general comment, but having finally gotten around to reading
some
of the mailing list posts to this list (wikimedia-dc) from the past few days, a lot of the tone of various aspects of this proposed chapter, etc. strikes me as stiflingly and wholly unnecessarily formalistic. I
appreciate
organization and I appreciate passion, but I think there are some people
who
are much more interested in mock government and rules of order than a
more
laid-back approach where the goal is that people who enjoy free culture/wikis/etc. hang out and geek out.
Perhaps I'm alone in these feelings and perhaps I simply need to stop associating with whatever Wikimedia DC becomes, if the general consensus
is
that things are headed in the right direction. I do wonder if others
agree,
though.
Does Wikimedia DC have a statement of principles or anything like that at this point?
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
Thanks for posting this. I missed the meeting last weekend, so I've stayed kind of quiet. I don't quite understand why there is a sudden need for all the formality. A statement of principles, or event an explanation of what we are trying to achieve with this formality (dues, pobox, etc) would help me understand what is going on.
//Ed
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:00 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This is a general comment, but having finally gotten around to reading some of the mailing list posts to this list (wikimedia-dc) from the past few days, a lot of the tone of various aspects of this proposed chapter, etc. strikes me as stiflingly and wholly unnecessarily formalistic. I appreciate organization and I appreciate passion, but I think there are some people who are much more interested in mock government and rules of order than a more laid-back approach where the goal is that people who enjoy free culture/wikis/etc. hang out and geek out.
Perhaps I'm alone in these feelings and perhaps I simply need to stop associating with whatever Wikimedia DC becomes, if the general consensus is that things are headed in the right direction. I do wonder if others agree, though.
Does Wikimedia DC have a statement of principles or anything like that at this point?
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
Thanks for posting this. I missed the meeting last weekend, so I've stayed kind of quiet. I don't quite understand why there is a sudden need for all the formality. A statement of principles, or event an explanation of what we are trying to achieve with this formality (dues, pobox, etc) would help me understand what is going on.
There were two main factors driving us to incorporate:
1. We're going to host Wikimania 2012 here in DC. Organizing a conference of this scale requires a very large sum of money. Handling this money safely requires a corporation (or, to be more precise, a limited liability entity, of which a corporation is the most common form); otherwise, the individual Wikimedians who participate in the Wikimania planning could potentially wind up being liable for the costs of the conference if anything goes wrong. Further, raising this much money will require donations, which again requires a suitable entity (i.e. a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation) to receive the funds; nobody is going to give $50K to a random Wikimedian.
2. More-or-less separately from this, the idea of becoming a Wikimedia "chapter" has been in the works for a long time, mostly in relation to GLAM outreach and so forth. Getting chapter recognition again requires a corporate entity of some sort that can sign the relevant trademark agreements with the WMF; the WMF has specified that this entity should ideally be a member corporation.
Basically, we're forced to incorporate as a non-profit if we want to make any real headway on either issue.
The formality is really just a consequence of having to go through the necessary legal and procedural steps to (a) set up a corporation and (b) operate the corporation in a way that doesn't leave its members/directors/etc. personally liable.
Kirill
wikimedia-dc@lists.wikimedia.org