Actually, we have always had them. As a not fo profit in the United States, we are required to have a mission statement, because we are accepting money. People have a right to know what they are giving money to, and that is laid out in the mission statement.
For instance, Wikimedia cannot decide to spend 100,000 euros on sending food to Darfur because--even though it is a worthy cause--it lies outside the scope of our mission. This helps to ensure to our donors that the money they give us us used specifically for the development and spread of free content/knowledge.
Danny
In a message dated 10/29/2006 6:48:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
On 10/29/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/29/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
For example, we worked on drafting a formal vision and mission statement
Why?
Because.
The problem is that that is what I'm rather worried the answer would be. We appear to have got on okay without one and I tend to feel that haveing one would risk giving rule lawyers more aminition.
-- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/29/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Actually, we have always had them. As a not fo profit in the United States, we are required to have a mission statement, because we are accepting money. People have a right to know what they are giving money to, and that is laid out in the mission statement.
You can legally have informal ones (that is what Michael Snow's comments suggest exists at the moment)?
On 29/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/29/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Actually, we have always had them. As a not fo profit in the United States, we are required to have a mission statement, because we are accepting money. People have a right to know what they are giving money to, and that is laid out in the mission statement.
You can legally have informal ones (that is what Michael Snow's comments suggest exists at the moment)?
I think "placeholder" may be more accurate than "informal" - incorporating with an official aim that says "to do good stuff in a really really general way" and then going back to firm up the details later.
At 07:51 -0500 29/10/06, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Actually, we have always had them. As a not fo profit in the United States, we are required to have a mission statement, because we are accepting money. People have a right to know what they are giving money to, and that is laid out in the mission statement.
For instance, Wikimedia cannot decide to spend 100,000 euros on sending food to Darfur because--even though it is a worthy cause--it lies outside the scope of our mission. This helps to ensure to our donors that the money they give us us used specifically for the development and spread of free content/knowledge.
Danny
Same in the UK. Charities must have set of objectives (called "objects").
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/UK_Wikimedia
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/
Gordon
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org