Based on the message from James Alexander,[1] there is a long history to
this line of discussion that I've missed -- so maybe this has been covered.
But I'd like to underscore James A's point, from a different perspective.
( tl;dr -- Build a consensus around a desired course of action, *then* seek
legal advice -- not the other way around.)
In my last message I mentioned the Center for Lobbying in the Public
Interest,[2] but I failed to offer context. CLPI offers trainings (I
participated in one a few years ago) and resources, specifically for U.S.
non-profit organizations that are interested in lobbying and advocacy, and
concerned about possible threats to their tax status (or other related
legal threats). To make a long story short, in general, those in the U.S.
non-profit world tend to be much more anxious about this issue than they
need to be. While due diligence is of course important, the kinds of things
that threaten the 501(c)(3) tax status tend to be working for or against
the election of specific candidates, or devoting a substantial portion of
one's annual budget (somewhere around 40%, if memory serves) to passing or
opposing specific legislation.
I think Wikimedia is no exception. I think there are very good reasons to
be cautious about how much and what kind of advocacy the Wikimedia
Foundation engages in, but by and large, the reasons are not *legal* ones.
They're related to our vision, our mission, our strategic plan, and our
model of community governance.
If there is a strong consensus to pursue an advocacy agenda in support our
mission, I think it's safe to assume that the Legal department would
support those efforts, and issue appropriate pushback if necessary. The
SOPA blackout illustrates that.[3] But I don't see the use in devoting the
resources of the legal team to a detailed *general* answer to this
question, when (based on what I learned from CLPI) it seems unlikely that
the law will be a significant obstacle.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] for those who don't know, James A.'s title is: Manager, Legal and
Community Advocacy/Wikimedia Foundation
[2]
http://www.clpi.org/
[3]
http://enwp.org/WP:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more ( <-- needs updating, but
offers good background )
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 5:35 PM, James Alexander <jamesofur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
James,
You have continued this, and related, lines of questioning of multiple
staff members and of the community for quite some time now. It is clear
that you have not received an answer that you find satisfactory, and I
understand that, but may I ask what makes you think that you will receive
an answer that is satisfactory to you by continuing to ask the same
questions. It is possible, and in my opinion likely right now, that you
will never receive an answer that satisfies you given the realities of the
conversation.
My read of the discussions (and lack thereof) that have happened here and
elsewhere over the course of many years when you bring these topics up is
that the level of interest in pursuing your specific agenda is not only low
but, if anything, actively negative. That is not to say that many of us do
not, personally, agree with the goals that you espouse just that we do not
believe the foundation should be actively participating in them. Spreading
us too thin is not helpful for any of our goals and focus, including in
advocacy, is incredibly important.
I would encourage you, James, to move on from this line of discussion.
Continued work on it, whether it be via passive aggressive emails 'to'
staff members (while copying in a public mailing list), attempts to rally
up support through different mailing lists or via proposed surveys of the
community are unlikely to change the response that has been clear for at
least 5 years. I understand that you may not see these emails or proposals
in the way I described but I urge you look at them through others eyes.
James Alexander
User:Jamesofur
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 4:47 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Geoff,
Would you please clarify which of the advocacy topics below, if any,
are precluded by the restrictions at
https://web.archive.org/web/20120621122539/http://www.irs.gov/charities/art…
?
Since multiple people have claimed that some are without saying which,
it would be very helpful to have some clarity from an authority. The
topics were designed to address volunteer quality of life issues on
which the Foundation has not been active because they were not
considered when volunteer survey respondents were polled on their
advocacy preferences. I am not interested in correcting those
omissions with any topics which are precluded by IRS regulations.
Thank you!
1. Labor rights, e.g., linking to
fixmyjob.com
2. Support the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child and its protocols without reservation
3. Increase infrastructure spending
4. Increase education spending
5. Public school class size reduction
6. College subsidy with income-based repayment terms
7. More steeply progressive taxation
8. Negative interest on excess reserves
9. Telecommuting
10. Workweek length reduction
11. Single-payer health care
12. Renewable power purchase
13. Increased data center hardware power efficiency
14. Increased security against eavesdropping
15. Metropolitan broadband
16. Oppose monopolization of software, communications, publishing, and
finance industries
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>