On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just because the charity is explicitly intended to
work with the
Wikimedia projects doesn't give the WMF power over it. Any part of the
governing documents that did so would be void anyway - you can't
overrule the law with your Articles.
Possibly. But I would strongly advise, from a ChapCom point of view,
against a sentence, which was proposed here, if I recall correctly,
such as "The association shared the goals and vision of the Wikimedia
Foundation" (I quote from memory but it was in this direction).
This suggests that, whatever WMF does and in the future decides to do,
WmUK will principally follow. And here, a judge might intervene and
say "Hey, wait a moment, if WmUK ties its goals so closely to the
Wikimedia Foundation and just incorporates them by reference as their
own goals, this company is probably really just a branch of the WMF.
And if the WMF changes its goals, the branch will follow. So why
exactly did you say that you are not WMF's British daughter company
representing them?"
(I am aware that there is a bit of a non sequitur between the second
last sentence and the following question. But then, I am afraid you
need to calculate the possibility that a judge will make this non
sequitur).
And yes, WmCH bylaws do have a similar sentence. Now, with the
experience of some more years, I would not include it anymore. But at
least, we also have quite a few sentences on our goals independent
from the WMF.
Regards,
Michael
--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler(a)gmail.com