Being a member of a company (and in future a member of a charity) will bring a certain responsibility, which some may find is not what they want.
Technical point: Wiki UK Ltd. is a charity now - a charity is defined as a non-profit company with charitable objects. Registration is not required to be a charity, just to be a "registered charity". That's not important, though.
I agree people should have the option of supporting us without the responsibility (however small) that goes along with membership of a company, however it should be up to them, not anyone else.
A company with 1,000 members will be hard to manage. However, a company with 100 members and 1,000 friends will be much easier to keep running.
I don't see anything particularly hard to manage with a 1000 members company. Most people won't attend the AGMs and will vote by proxy. If a significant number do attend the AGM then it would need to be run a little more formally, a show of hands isn't likely to work for anything but the most uncontroversial resolutions, but that's not too difficult. I don't see how you can disenfranchise 90% of the membership just for convenience, it goes completely against the democratic ideals of the chapter.
I believe most people would want to be a "friend" rather than a "member", and I mean "member" in the technical sense of "guarantor member".
At this point, you're just guessing. The lists of people interested in being guarantor and supporting members were pretty similar in length.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see anything particularly hard to manage with a 1000 members company. Most people won't attend the AGMs and will vote by proxy. If a significant number do attend the AGM then it would need to be run a little more formally, a show of hands isn't likely to work for anything but the most uncontroversial resolutions, but that's not too difficult. I don't see how you can disenfranchise 90% of the membership just for convenience, it goes completely against the democratic ideals of the chapter.
Absolutely. Amnesty International (Swiss section) for example switched recently back to a system with AGMs where every single member can, in theory, attend. It's not like more than a tiny fraction of the members would ever consider doing so -- if they are anyway just in to support the association (and not because they want to take a very active part in it), then they won't bother to spend an afternoon at an assembly-meeting.
If it gets really really unmaneuvrable and if you once experience an AGM where 750 people want to join, *then* you can start thinking in terms of local branches and delegates (i.e. you have county-level or so branches, which each elect 1-2 delegates who then go to the national AGM which is then no longer a general meeting but a delegates' meeting).
But this, really, would be a loss in democracy and as long as the AGMs work smoothly, you've got good and easy procedures on proxy voting etc. I really don't see any reason for such a disenfranchisement either.
Michael
I believe most people would want to be a "friend" rather than a "member", and I mean "member" in the technical sense of "guarantor member".
At this point, you're just guessing. The lists of people interested in being guarantor and supporting members were pretty similar in length.
If this is indeed the case, then once we have a "friend" level of membership (hopefully after the AGM, subject to it being approved), most people will sign up for that, which sorts out your problem.
I disagree fundamentally with limiting the number of (guarantor) members to 100, or indeed having any maximum number, simply because I believe that the charity should be as open to all as possible. What would people say if en.wp were restricted to 100 admins, and everyone else had to be editors?
Mike
On Dec 3, 2:13 pm, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
I believe most people would want to be a "friend" rather than a "member",
At this point, you're just guessing. The lists of people interested in being guarantor and supporting members were pretty similar in length.
If this is indeed the case, then once we have a "friend" level of membership (hopefully after the AGM, subject to it being approved), most people will sign up for that, which sorts out your problem.
I very much echo everything that people have said on it and I'm glad there is such a consensus (even if not yet unanimity!) on this. I don't think the Board should refuse membership to those that want it just because the numbers reach a certain level. I hope the Membership Rules that are finally adopted are drafted to prevent any future Board unilaterally doing this and I hope the AGM votes to entrench these rules when we meet early next year.
On the other hand, I could see quite a few people wanting to sign up as a friend/supporter and not a member. The wikipedia projects allow people to keep their anonymity, and many might want not to disclose their name and residential address to the chapter.
I hope we can come up with some kind of accommodation for people like this - letting them support and get involved in the chapter without having to become a member.
Andrew
At 13:35 +0000 3/12/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
[...]
I don't see how you can disenfranchise 90% of the membership just for convenience, it goes completely against the democratic ideals of the chapter.
I believe most people would want to be a "friend" rather than a "member", and I mean "member" in the technical sense of "guarantor member".
At this point, you're just guessing. The lists of people interested in being guarantor and supporting members were pretty similar in length.
[...]
I am sure there is some guesswork here.
And yes, I agree, WMUK must be democratic. I am trying to suggest that making every "supporting member" become a guarantor member (or become nothing) might not be the best way forward.
Regards,
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org