geni 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)?
Legally, a nonprofit organization must have a purpose, and the purpose has to be lawful and not for pecuniary profit. The law may require that this purpose be set forth in the incorporating documents, and I assume that's the sort of thing Danny is referring to. There's a statement of purpose in the current Wikimedia Foundation bylaws. It has, however, never really been meaningfully adopted by the community, which is why I'm suggesting a referendum on the vision and mission statements.
Vision and mission statements aren't formal legal documents themselves, although they can be incorporated into such documents. I think there's general agreement that the bylaws are badly in need of updating, and that issue was noted at the retreat as a high priority. In conjunction with that, community-adopted vision and mission statements could help provide guidance to the board (especially the elected representatives, but also the others). Right now, I don't see much that would convey to Florence or Erik what the community wants from them. They can pay attention to various individual voices according to their own preferences, of course, but otherwise they're divining the tea leaves of consensus like the rest of us.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
geni 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)?
Legally, a nonprofit organization must have a purpose, and the purpose has to be lawful and not for pecuniary profit. The law may require that this purpose be set forth in the incorporating documents, and I assume that's the sort of thing Danny is referring to. There's a statement of purpose in the current Wikimedia Foundation bylaws. It has, however, never really been meaningfully adopted by the community, which is why I'm suggesting a referendum on the vision and mission statements.
Vision and mission statements aren't formal legal documents themselves, although they can be incorporated into such documents. I think there's general agreement that the bylaws are badly in need of updating, and that issue was noted at the retreat as a high priority. In conjunction with that, community-adopted vision and mission statements could help provide guidance to the board (especially the elected representatives, but also the others). Right now, I don't see much that would convey to Florence or Erik what the community wants from them. They can pay attention to various individual voices according to their own preferences, of course, but otherwise they're divining the tea leaves of consensus like the rest of us.
--Michael Snow
Earl Grey being my favorite.
Long before the retreat, I raised my concern about the "vision" and the "mission statement". During the retreat, both Erik and I agreed on the fact there was information missing about it, so we collectively drafted a new text. A referendum on this text was indeed suggested (it may have been by Michael, I must say I forgot :-)), and I think the idea is good. I do not think it has been formally approved though (might become quite difficult to do a referendum given our community size now, on the other hand, Erik is quite good at setting up referendums ;-)).
ant
On 10/31/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Long before the retreat, I raised my concern about the "vision" and the "mission statement". During the retreat, both Erik and I agreed on the fact there was information missing about it, so we collectively drafted a new text.
"to provide the necessary functions for supporting the legal basis, essential technical operations and broad financial means for the global collaborative content communities that empower individuals to become active participants in knowledge sharing and dissemination."
Is that the final version?
Anthony
On 11/1/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/31/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Long before the retreat, I raised my concern about the "vision" and the "mission statement". During the retreat, both Erik and I agreed on the fact there was information missing about it, so we collectively drafted a new text.
"to provide the necessary functions for supporting the legal basis, essential technical operations and broad financial means for the global collaborative content communities that empower individuals to become active participants in knowledge sharing and dissemination."
No I think you've been looking at a photo of my personal version of the mission statement.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
At 15:29 +0800 1/11/06, Andrew Lih wrote:
On 11/1/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/31/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Long before the retreat, I raised my concern about the "vision" and the "mission statement". During the retreat, both Erik and I agreed on the fact there was information missing about it, so we collectively drafted a new text.
"to provide the necessary functions for supporting the legal basis, essential technical operations and broad financial means for the global collaborative content communities that empower individuals to become active participants in knowledge sharing and dissemination."
No I think you've been looking at a photo of my personal version of the mission statement.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Mea culpa!
??
Gordo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org