I think, before we go into any detail on chapters, influence of locals, set and elected trustees and so on we should spend a little more time and think of what is actually needed if we talk about a global structure pushing the wikipedia/wikimedia idea forward. The following are a few thoughts, open for comment. I am using "Wikimedia" here in this posting not as a name for the current foundation, but for the big-picture-project, that we all feel part of and that was founded as "Wikipedia" by Jimmy and later extendend to cover all sort of wikibased content ("Wikimedia").
We will all agree that there needs to be one organization that runs servers and acts as a service provider, because otherwise there would be no Wiki. That organization obviously needs to have the final decision making on what is on the servers, because the people running that service will be responsible for the content. However, we don't want to have that control extended in a way that the people running the server are able to enforce general guidelines and rules on the Wikimedia project and it's subprojects as such. Much of the current headaches some people have with the current bylaws arise from that intermingling of service and project.
The best way to deal with that issue would be two seperate the corporation running the wiki service from the corporation being "Wikimedia". Wikimedia would just buy in (or get donated, we don't need to discuss that in detail already at this point) the *service* to run the wiki from that other corporation (I call that one "Service Provider" for now). This way, the service provider has full control of the user accounts, can block users if the put copyright violating content on the servers and so on. But if the service provider blocks users for reasons, that are not understood by Wikimedia, Wikimedia can just go ahead and find another service provider.
Wikimedia, on the other hand, would be the organization that actually *is the project* (not the service). That organization needs to be * democratically organized * global * bound now and for all future to the common goal of creating free content without paying authors or officials; however we must consider that there might be a need in the future to have employees, if the project get's Big with a capital B. * allowing a country substructure for better fundraising and representation * allowing a project substructure for setting project policies and representation (these are two different things, it might be a necessary to speak for the *german language Wikipedia* at one time and for the *german Wikimedians" at another time * organized in a way that these local chapters and subproject chapters form the organization bottom up and not top down.
Lars Aronssen mentioned on the german list the "Medizins sans frontiere" (is ist "medicines without frontieres" in english?). As far as I can see, they are a network of local organizations, there is no superstructure, however, they operate together without breaking up since 1971 and even got the peace nobel price. I think organizing that way would be a very good thing.
What they have is a common, but very short "charta" that fixes four major points one and forever. That charta is declared as part of the local and project organization bylaws, but - apart from that - those organizations are legally independant.
However, I do not think that we can do completely without some sort of superstructure. That superstructure is probably needed to sign contracts with the service provider mentioned above (it could also be done by the local chapter of the country the service provider resides in), to draw up general rules and to change the charta in case of need (consider a drastical technological or copyright law change in 20 years from now that would have a dramatic impact). Such a change of the charta would have to be adopted by the local and project chapters. But it's very likeley that they will adapt it, since they had influence on the revision. Third, those superstructure would have the rights on the Wikipedia/Wikimedia names.
To avoid a "democratic takeover" of that superstructure by a single interest group, and to avoid language barriers for members, this should have no individual persons as members - only project and local suborganizations (It will be a hard thing to tune the voting influence, but I think it's feasable). Those local and project organizations would have to send representatives, if a physical meeting is needed for some reason.
Probably I should draw a nice ASCII art image somewhere, but I think you got the picture: If we start to think really global now, we must go in the direction outlined above and seperate the "to-do's" that are needed to keep our idea working into seperate organizations. Organizations that act together, but still control each other in a way that no single person with superpowers is needed to keep the Wikimedia idea alive.
Uli
Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
Lars Aronssen mentioned on the german list the "Medizins sans frontiere" (is ist "medicines without frontieres" in english?). As far as I can see, they
I mentioned them as one of several international organizations that have national chapters. The French name is Medecins Sans Frontiers (www.msf.org), the German section is www.aerzte-ohne-grenzen.de
One thing that can be observed is that on the top right of their German website is a bank account for donations (Spendenkonto). This is a German bank account that belongs to the German section. This could be food for thought: If a German membership association ("e.V.") for Wikipedia is founded, and it opens a bank account, can this bank account be displayed on the front de.wikipedia.org, or would that be reserved for bank accounts directly belonging to Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Florida USA? Of course, the website ultimately belongs to the American foundation, and so does the decision.
Of course, for MSF the main activity is sending doctors to work abroad in developing countries or disaster areas, and their website is just a minor expense in their budget. The German MSF website belongs to the German section, etc. In contrast, the German Wikipedia website is not owned by the German membership organization, but by the American Foundation.
Another issue is to how big a degree a German Wikipedia membership organization can be independent from the American foundation. What if two or three separate German organizations are formed? The mother foundation probably needs to appoint one of them to be the "official" one, allow them to use the Wikipedia or Wikimedia name, etc., and probably should prosecute any other organization for illegally using these names. Or perhaps my preconceived notions run away with me here. Could we live with a plurality of supporter organizations?
I was personally surprised to learn from the bylaws of the German sections of MSF (URL above) and ISOC (www.isoc.de) that the annual general assembly of members is free and sovereign to decide on modification of the bylaws. For Swedish membership organizations, it is normal that amendments to the bylaws require decisions on two separate general assembly meetings with at least a month between them.
In addition to this, for the Swedish chapter of ISOC (www.isoc.se), any amendment to the bylaws must be approved by the ISOC Vice President of Chapters. The initiative and decision to amend the bylaws must come from within the Swedish chapter, so no changes can be pushed down from above; ISOC only has a veto power. You can read an English translation of the bylaws for ISOC-SE (particularly § 7) on http://www.isoc.se/arsmote010314/engelska010301.pdf However, no veto paragraph is found in the bylaws for ISOC-DE.
I personally find the Swedish ISOC bylaws quite acceptable. If the members of the Swedish chapter would suddenly vote to change the bylaws to promote letter pidgeons instead of the Internet, then the international organization should be able to veto this change. The veto paragraph (§ 7) was introduced because ISOC required it. I have no idea about the history of the bylaws for the German chapter.
I also learned that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a "foundation" in the European sense of the word. Swedish law defines different cases for non-profit membership organizations, for-profit membership organizations (coops) and foundations. Foundations are inherently void of democracy, since they cannot have members. A typical Swedish foundation is the Nobel Foundation, formed according to the will of Alfred Nobel. In Sweden, churches, political parties, and trade unions are defined as non-profit membership organizations. Naively I had assumed that the German "e.V." was a direct equivalent of the Swedish non-profit membership organization. However, I was told that in Germany, churches, political parties, and trade unions are not at all of the "e.V." form, but organizations of other kinds, defined in separate laws.
I'm really learning a lot here. Hope these observations can be useful.
From: "Lars Aronsson" lars@aronsson.se
I also learned that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a "foundation" in the European sense of the word. Swedish law defines different cases for non-profit membership organizations, for-profit membership organizations (coops) and foundations. Foundations are inherently void of democracy, since they cannot have members. A typical Swedish foundation is the Nobel Foundation, formed according to the will of Alfred Nobel. In Sweden, churches, political parties, and trade unions are defined as non-profit membership organizations. Naively I had assumed that the German "e.V." was a direct equivalent of the Swedish non-profit membership organization. However, I was told that in Germany, churches, political parties, and trade unions are not at all of the "e.V." form, but organizations of other kinds, defined in separate laws.
Yes, Foundations have an ancient origin in Roman/Eclessiastical law in the European civilian legal tradition in that the foundation was usually tied to an "endowment" of some sort most commonly used to perpetuate the legacy of a donor or family so that a religious institution might prosper under such patronage.
In the United States the law of "private foundations" is primarily federal tax law that has to do with the status of an organization that has funding from one or a limited number of sources and the requirement that the "private foundation" spend some of its income each year in order to keep its tax exempt status.
However, the law of not-for-profit entities is within the jurisdiction of each state and, as far as I know, there is no restriction on using the word "foundation" to mean organizations that are funded by a private philantropist rather than a "public charity" (that is what the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. hopes to be) funded by a great number of persons. Some public charities adopt such a name as it seems to lend them creedance upon benefactor as the word has an air of permanance about it in American English.
So while in Europe one would expect, as you have stated Lars, that the foundation is an endowment, in the United States a foundation can be a membership organization, or quasi-membership organization such as Wikipedia (it is not truly a membership organization as not all the board members are elected by members, only a minority are so voted at the inception of the organization according to the Bylaws).
Alex R. (en:user:alex756)
Alex T. wrote:
So while in Europe one would expect, as you have stated Lars, that the foundation is an endowment, in the United States a foundation can be a membership organization, or quasi-membership organization such as
Perhaps this should go into some FAQ, to avoid Europeans being confused by the name.
On Sunday 25 January 2004 03:19 pm, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
Lars Aronssen mentioned on the german list the "Medizins sans frontiere" (is ist "medicines without frontieres" in english?). As far as I can see, they
I mentioned them as one of several international organizations that have national chapters. The French name is Medecins Sans Frontiers (www.msf.org), the German section is www.aerzte-ohne-grenzen.de
One thing that can be observed is that on the top right of their German website is a bank account for donations (Spendenkonto). This is a German bank account that belongs to the German section. This could be food for thought: If a German membership association ("e.V.") for Wikipedia is founded, and it opens a bank account, can this bank account be displayed on the front de.wikipedia.org, or would that be reserved for bank accounts directly belonging to Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Florida USA? Of course, the website ultimately belongs to the American foundation, and so does the decision.
Of course, for MSF the main activity is sending doctors to work abroad in developing countries or disaster areas, and their website is just a minor expense in their budget. The German MSF website belongs to the German section, etc. In contrast, the German Wikipedia website is not owned by the German membership organization, but by the American Foundation.
Maybe a good first step would be to stop calling Wikimedia "American", as it aims to be the international body which governs all the wikimedia projects.
Best, Sascha Noyes
From: "Ulrich Fuchs" mail@ulrich-fuchs.de
The best way to deal with that issue would be two seperate the corporation running the wiki service from the corporation being "Wikimedia". Wikimedia would just buy in (or get donated, we don't need to discuss that in detail already at this point) the *service* to run the wiki from that other corporation (I call that one "Service Provider" for now).
You raise some interesting point Ulrich that are worth considering. I have previously mentioned the issue of the informal association of Wikipedians on meta: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Wikimedians and I am glad you recognized a main point, just because there is a legal entity that does not define all the activities of all the members. Just think of some organization that allows people to use its facilities, i.e. a club or recreational centre for instance. There are rules, i.e. only members can use it, they can only use if for legal purposes. There may also be costs for membership dues or even pay per use service fees, i.e. you want eat in the club restaurant, you have to pay for your food (perhaps at a subsidized or profit free rate).
I see Wikimedia/Wikipedia the same way. There are things members can do, i.e. create accounts, edit pages. Create their own language Wikipedia or other Wikimedia project. However, there are community wide standards, i.e. no advertising, no personal attacks, etc.. There is structure to each project as well. We even have a cafe on some Wikipedias like the Francophone Bistro! (though coffee and sandwiches are not yet available there ;). Anyone can start a trust fund or a private foundation whose purpose would be to donate money to Wikimedia to support its worthy endeavors. There does not need any permission to do that from Wikimedia or Jimbo, just as no permission is needed to create a user account or edit anywhere in the Wikimedia universe, so each individual Wikimedia has autonomy and it could not be otherwise, but there is an overarching structure, the original data is all on a set of computers owed by Wikimedia. It must maintain standards in order to convince the tax authorities in the US that it has a valid not-for-profit charitable purpose and it must maintain some control over its members.
All membership organizations do that if they mention it in their bylaws or not. Just read Robert's Rules of Order that is the standard rule for parliamentary bodies and associational organizations in the United States. It is an inherent right of an organization to have some body that is able to remove members for some reason as well as discipline them. Why not have it stated and codified rather than remain an undocumented right. It seems good to me that it is stated in the bylaws because then members can argue about it, put pressure on the board to change it and make sure that it is only used for proper purposes so as not to subvert the goals of the organization.
Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
However, we don't want to have that control extended in a way that the people running the server are able to enforce general guidelines and rules on the Wikimedia project and it's subprojects as such.
I'm not sure what you're speaking of specifically here, but I would say that yes, we do want to make sure that the control does very much extend to the ability to enforce general guidelines and rules.
NPOV, for example.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org