2008/12/1 Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com:
At 22:36 +0000 30/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean?
Yes, what we call "member" is what WMUK v1.0 called "guarantor member".
So, is there only one class of membership for WMUK 2.0?
So far, yes.
At 17:33 +0000 1/12/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/12/1 Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com:
At 22:36 +0000 30/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean?
Yes, what we call "member" is what WMUK v1.0 called "guarantor member".
So, is there only one class of membership for WMUK 2.0?
So far, yes.
But really there are two: directors and members, surely?
Gordo
On Dec 1, 7:05 pm, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
But really there are two: directors and members, surely?
I suppose you could think about it like this, yes, but this could confuse people.
Legally speaking the members are the owners of the organisation, who meet annually and elect the trustee/directors who manage the company from day to day.
You sometimes have organisations which have different classes of membership - say one restricted class with a hundred votes per member and another general one with one vote per member. That way the holders of the restricted class stay in control of the organisation. I understand Google has that kind of corporate structure. One charity I acted for a while ago had a list of supporters but kept the actual legal members to only the directors.
You can choose the model that best represents what you want to acheive. At the moment Wiki UK has just two levels - the Trustee/ Directors and Members.
At 15:22 -0800 1/12/08, AndrewRT wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:05 pm, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
But really there are two: directors and members, surely?
I suppose you could think about it like this, yes, but this could confuse people.
Legally speaking the members are the owners of the organisation, who meet annually and elect the trustee/directors who manage the company from day to day.
You sometimes have organisations which have different classes of membership - say one restricted class with a hundred votes per member and another general one with one vote per member. That way the holders of the restricted class stay in control of the organisation. I understand Google has that kind of corporate structure. One charity I acted for a while ago had a list of supporters but kept the actual legal members to only the directors.
You can choose the model that best represents what you want to acheive. At the moment Wiki UK has just two levels - the Trustee/ Directors and Members.
_
I assert that that model is wrong. Maybe not for inception, but certainly for the future.
Gordo
On Dec 2, 9:11 am, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
I assert that that model is wrong. Maybe not for inception, but certainly for the future.
Are you happy that the model works ok for when we have less than, say, 100 members? Given that we dont foresee being at that level for a while, the model seems ok.
What model would you prefer for 100+ members?
Andrew
At 11:24 -0800 2/12/08, AndrewRT wrote:
On Dec 2, 9:11 am, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
I assert that that model is wrong. Maybe not for inception, but certainly for the future.
Are you happy that the model works ok for when we have less than, say, 100 members? Given that we dont foresee being at that level for a while, the model seems ok.
Well, indeed. But I like to plan ahead...
What model would you prefer for 100+ members?
Andrew
10 Trustees, 100 members maxiumum, unlimited "friends of WMUK".
This also make the admission of members to the company (charity) simpler.
I would hope that the majority would always be heard.
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org