SJ wrote:
As to anonymity...
in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that
part of the
lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be respected.
I don't know anyone actively interested in being a member of the foundation (whatever that means) who wants their identity to be hidden *from the foundation*. Hidden from other editors and from the general public, perhaps. I can imagine the former being the case in a theoretical sense; but I would like to know of a single example so that we're not setting up a complete hypothetical as a strawman.
There certainly are people sufficiently active to be considered potential members who have concluded that they do not want to share their identity with the Wikimedia Foundation. But I don't think that's really the issue to be concerned about here. It's the much larger number who want that identity or other personal information hidden, as indicated, from other editors or the general public. Let me explain.
The Florida statutes governing nonprofit organizations have detailed requirements, including many tied to legal membership in the organization. Given that we have the potential for a very large membership, this could get quite complex. The idea of using membership dues as a way to generate funds for Wikimedia was a nice-sounding notion; in reality, complying with the full requirements of a membership infrastructure would have substantial technical and administrative overhead. If the developers are offering to create the code to set this up and people really want to pay membership dues on the scale necessary, maybe we should, but already some skepticism is warranted.
One point that has been alluded to is that the Foundation would maintain records of members' names and addresses. Florida law also provides that members are entitled to inspect and copy various Foundation records. This includes, significantly, the record of members itself.
The laws regarding "membership" in this context are based heavily on the equivalent principles for shareholders in for-profit corporations. In such corporations, participants may have various business reasons to solicit each other at their addresses (proxies, buying and selling of shares, etc.). The corporations also have the resources to dedicate to the system, as well as the motivation, since they're ultimately dependent on it for capital.
Many of these principles do not translate easily to the nonprofit context. The legal membership model probably works well for some common examples, such as a club organization or the homeowners' association for a condominium complex. I don't know if it suits our community very well. Not because it's inconvenient for Jimbo and the professional staff, though it may be, but because if the community is fully informed about the legal consequences, I'm not so sure we would choose it.
Let me say it clearly for all of you. If you want to participate in legal membership in the Foundation, considering just how broadly we contemplate the concept of membership, you are effectively expressing a willingness for your name and address to become a public record. Any member can get a Florida attorney (Jack Thompson comes to mind) to represent them and ask for the membership records on their behalf. And I don't expect it will be possible to screen out in advance members you consider undesirable any more effectively than we can do so for project editors.
Given how strongly attached some of the community is to privacy and anonymity, I don't know if that's a choice we want to be forcing on people. Certainly it's not a model we should adopt without making sure people have thought carefully about it.
Various possibilities lie ahead. One is that we adopt legal membership with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. If this is done in the name of remaining "open", it's just as possible that in doing so we'd be departing from our openness toward those who value their privacy. Another possibility in the scenario is that depending on how membership is determined, including cost, we may find that relatively few people "join". At which point it becomes obvious that despite this effort, some people will choose to complain that the community is not represented in Foundation affairs, and it may seem that the entire exercise was valueless. It should also be observed that any definition of Foundation membership which is not coextensive with the community (and I don't see how gaps can be avoided) has the potential to factionalize people along the lines created by these fissures. A community divided over member vs. non-member, rich vs. poor, out vs. closeted, or other potential distinctions is certainly a possibility.
Or, finally, after considering the benefits and drawbacks of legal membership, we might choose a path without using it. Certainly the Wikimedia Foundation needs to incorporate the community into its functions, but it ought to be possible to do that, formally or informally, in ways that avoid the drawbacks of the legal regime. We might even occasionally talk in terms of members, but ultimately should be careful to disavow the statutory definition if we follow this course.
--Michael Snow
On 6/18/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Various possibilities lie ahead. One is that we adopt legal membership with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. If this is done in the name of remaining "open", it's just as possible that in doing so we'd be departing from our openness toward those who value their privacy. Another possibility in the scenario is that depending on how membership is determined, including cost, we may find that relatively few people "join". At which point it becomes obvious that despite this effort, some people will choose to complain that the community is not represented in Foundation affairs, and it may seem that the entire exercise was valueless. It should also be observed that any definition of Foundation membership which is not coextensive with the community (and I don't see how gaps can be avoided) has the potential to factionalize people along the lines created by these fissures. A community divided over member vs. non-member, rich vs. poor, out vs. closeted, or other potential distinctions is certainly a possibility.
Or, finally, after considering the benefits and drawbacks of legal membership, we might choose a path without using it. Certainly the Wikimedia Foundation needs to incorporate the community into its functions, but it ought to be possible to do that, formally or informally, in ways that avoid the drawbacks of the legal regime. We might even occasionally talk in terms of members, but ultimately should be careful to disavow the statutory definition if we follow this course.
Does Florida law require that member of nonprofits be actual persons? A nonprofit I used to work for (a national organization) had as its members the 50 state organizations of which it was comprised. Perhaps the members of Wikimedia should be the various national organizations which already exist, as corporate entities.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
Does Florida law require that member of nonprofits be actual persons? A nonprofit I used to work for (a national organization) had as its members the 50 state organizations of which it was comprised. Perhaps the members of Wikimedia should be the various national organizations which already exist, as corporate entities.
"Members" is a technical legal concept which should not straightjacket us too much. We can be a fully hardcore community organization without being a "membership organization" in the technical sense... as I understand it, a "membership organization" is one very special type of community-based organization, and one which for many reasons does not fit how we think of ourselves.
But as to your substantive point, I agree completely that we need a place at the board level (in the long term) for the interest of the chapters. I can really envision a case where, in the future, the chapter boards elect from among themselves a representative to the board, a fully voting representative.
I do not expect that to be an approach we take in the current contemplated board expansion, but for a future board expansion I think it would make very good sense. (In the past, we have had a very uneven distribution of chapters... but as chapters are being formed worldwide, in another year or two we will be able to think of the chapters as a whole as representing the segment of the community which is more interested in "organizational" work as well as "editing" work.)
I hope people are beginning to see the outlines of my thinking about what I mean when I say that I think we should be a community organization with a diversity of routes to board membership, because I think this better reflects who we are and what we do as a community than global voting for all board members would.
--Jimbo
On 6/18/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Let me say it clearly for all of you. If you want to participate in legal membership in the Foundation, considering just how broadly we contemplate the concept of membership, you are effectively expressing a willingness for your name and address to become a public record. Any member can get a Florida attorney (Jack Thompson comes to mind) to represent them and ask for the membership records on their behalf. And I don't expect it will be possible to screen out in advance members you consider undesirable any more effectively than we can do so for project editors.
Given how strongly attached some of the community is to privacy and anonymity, I don't know if that's a choice we want to be forcing on people. Certainly it's not a model we should adopt without making sure people have thought carefully about it.
No one is suggesting forcing anything on anyone. In order to become a foundation member, you would have to give your name and address. You don't have to be a foundation member in order to edit Wikipedia et. al.
If this is such an issue, and I don't see why it should be, I'm sure there are other states with more reasonable corporate laws. Florida is not a very popular state for corporations. Even Wikia moved out of Florida. IIRC, oregon is usually recognized for very liberal non-profit corporate laws.
Various possibilities lie ahead. One is that we adopt legal membership with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. If this is done in the name of remaining "open", it's just as possible that in doing so we'd be departing from our openness toward those who value their privacy. Another possibility in the scenario is that depending on how membership is determined, including cost, we may find that relatively few people "join". At which point it becomes obvious that despite this effort, some people will choose to complain that the community is not represented in Foundation affairs, and it may seem that the entire exercise was valueless. It should also be observed that any definition of Foundation membership which is not coextensive with the community (and I don't see how gaps can be avoided) has the potential to factionalize people along the lines created by these fissures. A community divided over member vs. non-member, rich vs. poor, out vs. closeted, or other potential distinctions is certainly a possibility.
We are already divided between board member and non-board member. Allowing people outside of the board to be members of the foundation makes the gap smaller, not larger.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
IIRC, oregon is usually recognized for very liberal non-profit corporate laws.
I doubt they are all that much different to justify a relocation.
A stand out local feature is there is no state sales tax. Which means by current U.S. Federal law governing transactions over the Internet. This means any corporate store owned and operated locally can be set up to move goods inside the U.S. for revenue with no need to do the paperwork and collect sales taxes for 48 various U.S. states who do have a state sales tax.
Obviously foreign excise duties must be still be investigated and serviced if the intent is to ship worldwide.
Also various U.S. restraints regarding the export of regulated militarily applicable technologies as well as import regulations.
Some research here might informative for any interested: http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Industry_Topics/Laws_and_Regulations_--_...
I could not find an official Oregon state site via google which is rather irritating and disappointing. How the hell can we be a nation of laws if the laws are secret, unknown, or published in an expensive proprietary format nobody wishes to invest in? No wonder the local law and order Republican busy bodies keep losing our state to the irresponsible fiscally conservative Democrats.
The local law library is open by prearranged appointment a few hours a week. If there are any serious specific questions regarding Corporate advantage somebody could fly into Coos Bay International and do the detailed research. 8)
regards, lazyquasar
On 6/19/06, Michael R. Irwin michael_irwin@verizon.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
IIRC, oregon is usually recognized for very liberal non-profit corporate laws.
I doubt they are all that much different to justify a relocation.
If they allow members to not make their address public I'd say that justifies a relocation.
A stand out local feature is there is no state sales tax. Which means by current U.S. Federal law governing transactions over the Internet.
That doesn't really apply to non-profits. The specific feature I was thinking about was the ability to have as few as one director. But as it turns out this was Nevada anyway. Nevada allows bearer certificates for its for-profit corporations.
Here we go. Nevada statutes 82.181(1): "A corporation shall keep a copy of the following records at its registered office:" (c) "If the corporation has members, a members' ledger or a duplicate members' ledger, revised annually, containing the names, alphabetically arranged, of all persons who are members of the corporation, showing their places of residence, if known and the class of membership held by each" So "places of residence" are only required "if known".
Yes, in order to be a member of the organization you have to give your name. That part seems reasonable to me. Even if you want to contribute to Wikipedia (for instance) pseudonymously you can still do that. There's no requirement that your real name be tied to your username. For the purposes of meeting the activity requirements you might want to tie at least one pseudonym to your real name without making this information public, though. Hopefully one day Wikipedia will make it possible to contribute without making even your pseudonym public.
I'm sure Nevada isn't the only jurisdiction which has this feature. Jimbo presumably chose Florida because it's where he lives, and for no other particular reason.
I could not find an official Oregon state site via google which is rather irritating and disappointing. How the hell can we be a nation of laws if the laws are secret, unknown, or published in an expensive proprietary format nobody wishes to invest in?
I found http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/ by typing in "oregon statutes" and hitting "I'm feeling lucky".
Anthony
On 6/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I could not find an official Oregon state site via google which is rather irritating and disappointing. How the hell can we be a nation of laws if the laws are secret, unknown, or published in an expensive proprietary format nobody wishes to invest in?
I found http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/ by typing in "oregon statutes" and hitting "I'm feeling lucky".
It is generally well-known that one can get the government of any state by going to www.state.xx.us, where xx is the state's postal code. Oregon's website can therefore be found at www.state.or.us. This redirects to oregon.gov, which is the state's official website.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I could not find an official Oregon state site via google which is rather irritating and disappointing. How the hell can we be a nation of laws if the laws are secret, unknown, or published in an expensive proprietary format nobody wishes to invest in?
I found http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/ by typing in "oregon statutes" and hitting "I'm feeling lucky".
It is generally well-known that one can get the government of any state by going to www.state.xx.us, where xx is the state's postal code. Oregon's website can therefore be found at www.state.or.us. This redirects to oregon.gov, which is the state's official website.
Kelly
The standard format provided redirects to a index page of links: http://www.oregon.gov/how_do_i.shtml#laws
which has a bunch of useful information and the link with the disclaimer that Anthony provided.
Apparently might as well be depending on a legal free wiki site and free content typists and editors as the State's official online publishing. Use of either is at your own risk.
regards, lazyquasar
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I found http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/ by typing in "oregon statutes" and hitting "I'm feeling lucky".
Might be less than lucky if depend upon this site for anything substantive. At the top below the title:
" The text appearing in this database was produced from material provided by the Legislative Counsel Committee of the Oregon Legislative Assembly. The official record copy is the printed published copy of the Oregon Revised Statutes. The text in the database is not the official text of Oregon law. Although efforts have been made to match the database text to the official legal text they represent, substantive errors or differences may remain. It is the user’s responsibility to verify the legal accuracy of all legal text. The Legislative Counsel Committee claims copyright protection in those parts of Oregon Revised Statutes that are legally subject to copyright protection."
Still it might be a useful starting point. I bookmarked it. Thanks!
regards, lazyquasar
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
A stand out local feature is there is no state sales tax. Which means by current U.S. Federal law governing transactions over the Internet. This means any corporate store owned and operated locally can be set up to move goods inside the U.S. for revenue with no need to do the paperwork and collect sales taxes for 48 various U.S. states who do have a state sales tax.
The sale of goods is a very minor concern for us. Most businesses only collect sales taxes from purchasers when the goods are delivered in state. For an organization with employees the lack of a state income tax may be more interesting. Florida does not have a state personal income tax.
Obviously foreign excise duties must be still be investigated and serviced if the intent is to ship worldwide.
That is usually the responsibility of the purchaser.
Also various U.S. restraints regarding the export of regulated militarily applicable technologies as well as import regulations.
What good of this sort are you planning to export?
The local law library is open by prearranged appointment a few hours a week. If there are any serious specific questions regarding Corporate advantage somebody could fly into Coos Bay International and do the detailed research. 8)
That's always a problem in small towns.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
A stand out local feature is there is no state sales tax. Which means by current U.S. Federal law governing transactions over the Internet. This means any corporate store owned and operated locally can be set up to move goods inside the U.S. for revenue with no need to do the paperwork and collect sales taxes for 48 various U.S. states who do have a state sales tax.
The sale of goods is a very minor concern for us. Most businesses only collect sales taxes from purchasers when the goods are delivered in state. For an organization with employees the lack of a state income tax may be more interesting. Florida does not have a state personal income tax.
Personal income tax does not affect the Wikimedia Foundation except indirectly as you note. Sales tax would affect any revenue creating shipments of product.
My thoughts were that the Foundation might choose to sale its stable CDs directly if no partners choose to package the CDs and provide a small percentage back to the originating community to encourage future editions of its product.
I understand the final producer of the German Wikipedia was/is contributing back $1 Euro per CD sold to customers to the German Chapter.
In large quantities, over a thousand or more at a time, CDs can be produced and packaged ready for shipping for under a dollar a CD. We probably need DVDs, maybe a couple. Figure shipping and handling at $5.00 a unit assuming some kind of efficiently organized order handling database, accounting system, label printer, postage meter and mail drop. The Foundation might sell the stable edition for twenty dollars plus shipping and handling to Windows users and earn up to $5.00 per customer while of course most linux distributions will eventally probably ship the FDL'ed product with their extended distributions over the internet somehow.
or we can continue to rely on donations.
either way is fine by me as long as the servers can stably service editors and users.
snip info on excise duties
Also various U.S. restraints regarding the export of regulated militarily applicable technologies as well as import regulations.
What good of this sort are you planning to export?
Human knowledge.
For example, a few years ago it was illegal to ship U.S. domestic versions of the animation package 3DStudio Max to Australia because it had distributed processing capabilities that the Pentagon wanted kept out of somebody's hands. Presumably because if you can visualize what is happening effectively you can make good decisions and more effectively develop complex weapons systems.
Should the group that I was working with ever adopt the free software package "Art of Illusion" and turn in a patch to allow distributed processing then it might be a good idea to have a foreign mirror distributing the patch to avoid entanglements with the Pentagon for U.S. users and distributors of the free software.
Interestingly, AFAIK, nobody has bothered the BOINC supercomputer types so perhaps enforcement is tangled up in cross border trade. Perhaps if no money changes hands the regulations have no teeth since they were written to address capitalists selling U.S. funded military technologies abroad.
I understand that there are such entanglements on various encryption technologies as well.
regards, lazyquasar
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org