On 1/22/06, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK we find past meetings listed as follows:
* 9th October 2005: London * 16th October 2005: IRC * 13th November 2005: IRC * 27th November 2005: London * 15th January 2006: LondonAnd Jimbo was present at the 27th November meeting.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Royal_Oak_bootstrap_meet.jpg
:-)
Ok, I can see two ways to set up the chapter (as apposed to the charity / company). (1) The foundation could agree to call the charity a chapter, and all members of the company would be members of the chapter. (2) The foundation could agree to let the company found a chapter as a separate and possibly informal membership organisation.
In both cases there would have to be agreement between the foundation and the UK company, but there are advantages and disadvantages to the two approaches. One issues is that the company can not have aims that exactly mirror the foundations (i.e. to run the wiki* websites) as this would not be seen as charitable in the UK. The aims (objects) in the current draft are relatively broad and would allow the company to pass funds on to the foundation (as well as performing other charitable activities), but the foundation may not want a chapter to have such broad aims. A second problem is that, as I understand it, under 18s could not subscribe to the company and so would not be able to become members of the chapter. In the second model the foundation could have more control of the bylaws of the chapter, that would just be managed by the charity in fulfillment of its objects. One thing we would have to look into is if subscriptions paid to the chapter (via the charity) and passed on to the foundation would be eligible for gift aid. The advantage of this more complex arrangement is that under 18s could join, and the bylaws of the chapter could include clauses such as "the member must be a regular editor of wikipedia" - something that would be possibly illegal for a chapter set up under option (1).
Views?
Andrew
On 1/23/06, Andrew Walker keggers@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I can see two ways to set up the chapter (as apposed to the charity / company). (1) The foundation could agree to call the charity a chapter, and all members of the company would be members of the chapter. (2) The foundation could agree to let the company found a chapter as a separate and possibly informal membership organisation.
My view of the whole thing is 1)
In both cases there would have to be agreement between the foundation and the UK company, but there are advantages and disadvantages to the two approaches. One issues is that the company can not have aims that exactly mirror the foundations (i.e. to run the wiki* websites) as this would not be seen as charitable in the UK. The aims (objects) in the current draft are relatively broad and would allow the company to pass funds on to the foundation (as well as performing other charitable activities), but the foundation may not want a chapter to have such broad aims.
As I tried to make clear in the FAQ, it is of course normal that a so called "chapter" tries to stick to the Foundation aims, and "of course" adapt them so as to get non-profit (or charity) status in the country they are based in. So for me, any aim that is broad enough to encase the Foundation's goals is fine. As for passing funds on to the Foundation, this has been a standing issue with most chapters anyway, and should be resolved on a one to one basis. Stick to the law, do your best, is my motto.
A second problem is that, as I understand it,
under 18s could not subscribe to the company and so would not be able to become members of the chapter. In the second model the foundation could have more control of the bylaws of the chapter, that would just be managed by the charity in fulfillment of its objects. One thing we would have to look into is if subscriptions paid to the chapter (via the charity) and passed on to the foundation would be eligible for gift aid. The advantage of this more complex arrangement is that under 18s could join, and the bylaws of the chapter could include clauses such as "the member must be a regular editor of wikipedia" - something that would be possibly illegal for a chapter set up under option (1).
I, for one, am not at all in favour of a complete control of the chapter (whatever its legal form) by the Foundation, at any time. Not to say that I am totally against (and this is a very personal point of view) of restricting access to chapters to wikipedia-editors only. As for under 18s joining, well, that might be a difficult call, but I don't believe it should stop you from doing the right thing.
I am totally amazed that we should even *have* this conversation. If "Wiki Educational Resources" is not planning to be "recognized" as a "Wikimedia chapter", then what have we been talking about this whole time? ie. Why is "Wiki Educational Resources" even discussed on a Wikimedia list?
(a baffled) Delphine -- ~notafish
On 1/23/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/23/06, Andrew Walker keggers@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I can see two ways to set up the chapter (as apposed to the charity / company). (1) The foundation could agree to call the charity a chapter, and all members of the company would be members of the chapter. (2) The foundation could agree to let the company found a chapter as a separate and possibly informal membership organisation.
My view of the whole thing is 1)
In both cases there would have to be agreement between the foundation and the UK company, but there are advantages and disadvantages to the two approaches. One issues is that the company can not have aims that exactly mirror the foundations (i.e. to run the wiki* websites) as this would not be seen as charitable in the UK. The aims (objects) in the current draft are relatively broad and would allow the company to pass funds on to the foundation (as well as performing other charitable activities), but the foundation may not want a chapter to have such broad aims.
As I tried to make clear in the FAQ, it is of course normal that a so called "chapter" tries to stick to the Foundation aims, and "of course" adapt them so as to get non-profit (or charity) status in the country they are based in. So for me, any aim that is broad enough to encase the Foundation's goals is fine. As for passing funds on to the Foundation, this has been a standing issue with most chapters anyway, and should be resolved on a one to one basis. Stick to the law, do your best, is my motto.
A second problem is that, as I understand it,
under 18s could not subscribe to the company and so would not be able to become members of the chapter. In the second model the foundation could have more control of the bylaws of the chapter, that would just be managed by the charity in fulfillment of its objects. One thing we would have to look into is if subscriptions paid to the chapter (via the charity) and passed on to the foundation would be eligible for gift aid. The advantage of this more complex arrangement is that under 18s could join, and the bylaws of the chapter could include clauses such as "the member must be a regular editor of wikipedia" - something that would be possibly illegal for a chapter set up under option (1).
I, for one, am not at all in favour of a complete control of the chapter (whatever its legal form) by the Foundation, at any time. Not to say that I am totally against (and this is a very personal point of view) of restricting access to chapters to wikipedia-editors only. As for under 18s joining, well, that might be a difficult call, but I don't believe it should stop you from doing the right thing.
I am totally amazed that we should even *have* this conversation. If "Wiki Educational Resources" is not planning to be "recognized" as a "Wikimedia chapter", then what have we been talking about this whole time? ie. Why is "Wiki Educational Resources" even discussed on a Wikimedia list?
(a baffled) Delphine
~notafish
Well, I think, basically, we're going to set up a UK-based charity (first a company), which will be about furthering the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation. We just don't want to put in exclusive clauses in our incorporating documents which could limit our activities, or could even be illegal (like being a "subsidiary" of the Wikimedia Foundation). So I think it's always going to be a kind of independent body with a relationship with the Foundation - this relationship being limited, legally, to the use of logo and trademarks. Have I got that right?
I don't think anyone is proposing anything other than a chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation - it's just that we're trying to work out what the most flexible form of legal structure would be (is there really a substantive distinction between Andrew's 1 and 2?). But, when we talk about "limiting our options" etc, it's not as if we're going to go off and create WikiNuclearWeapons or anything.. :-)
Cormac
On 1/23/06, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/23/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/23/06, Andrew Walker keggers@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I can see two ways to set up the chapter (as apposed to the charity / company). (1) The foundation could agree to call the charity a chapter, and all members of the company would be members of the chapter. (2) The foundation could agree to let the company found a chapter as a separate and possibly informal membership organisation.
My view of the whole thing is 1)
In both cases there would have to be agreement between the foundation and the UK company, but there are advantages and disadvantages to the two approaches. One issues is that the company can not have aims that exactly mirror the foundations (i.e. to run the wiki* websites) as this would not be seen as charitable in the UK. The aims (objects) in the current draft are relatively broad and would allow the company to pass funds on to the foundation (as well as performing other charitable activities), but the foundation may not want a chapter to have such broad aims.
As I tried to make clear in the FAQ, it is of course normal that a so called "chapter" tries to stick to the Foundation aims, and "of course" adapt them so as to get non-profit (or charity) status in the country they are based in. So for me, any aim that is broad enough to encase the Foundation's goals is fine. As for passing funds on to the Foundation, this has been a standing issue with most chapters anyway, and should be resolved on a one to one basis. Stick to the law, do your best, is my motto.
A second problem is that, as I understand it,
under 18s could not subscribe to the company and so would not be able to become members of the chapter. In the second model the foundation could have more control of the bylaws of the chapter, that would just be managed by the charity in fulfillment of its objects. One thing we would have to look into is if subscriptions paid to the chapter (via the charity) and passed on to the foundation would be eligible for gift aid. The advantage of this more complex arrangement is that under 18s could join, and the bylaws of the chapter could include clauses such as "the member must be a regular editor of wikipedia" - something that would be possibly illegal for a chapter set up under option (1).
I, for one, am not at all in favour of a complete control of the chapter (whatever its legal form) by the Foundation, at any time. Not to say that I am totally against (and this is a very personal point of view) of restricting access to chapters to wikipedia-editors only. As for under 18s joining, well, that might be a difficult call, but I don't believe it should stop you from doing the right thing.
I am totally amazed that we should even *have* this conversation. If "Wiki Educational Resources" is not planning to be "recognized" as a "Wikimedia chapter", then what have we been talking about this whole time? ie. Why is "Wiki Educational Resources" even discussed on a Wikimedia list?
(a baffled) Delphine
~notafish
Well, I think, basically, we're going to set up a UK-based charity (first a company), which will be about furthering the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation. We just don't want to put in exclusive clauses in our incorporating documents which could limit our activities, or could even be illegal (like being a "subsidiary" of the Wikimedia Foundation). So I think it's always going to be a kind of independent body with a relationship with the Foundation - this relationship being limited, legally, to the use of logo and trademarks. Have I got that right?
I don't think anyone is proposing anything other than a chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation - it's just that we're trying to work out what the most flexible form of legal structure would be (is there really a substantive distinction between Andrew's 1 and 2?). But, when we talk about "limiting our options" etc, it's not as if we're going to go off and create WikiNuclearWeapons or anything.. :-)
Cormac
The only difference between my (1) and (2) is that members of the chapter would not need to be members of the company/charity if we go for (2) but would be if we go for (1). This is only an interesting distinction if we want the chapter to have rules that the company/charity could not have. 'Members may be under the age of 18' and 'members must be active editors' are the only cases I can think of, and I don't know if we would want such rules anyway. Even if we went down the option (2) path I imagine that most members of the chapter would also be members of the company/charity.
Andrew
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org