On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote: I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre. Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something. You give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member. You attend a meeting of other members, maybe, and perhaps you are part of a particular local organization of that group. Churches, civic organizations, soup kitchens, environmental groups, etc., all exist in this paradigm for good reason; they include as part of their fundamental mission a dichotomy between those who *are* in the group and those who *are not* in the group. Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism and respect for the contributions of *everyone*. There is no us and them - if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are. It's simple, and only goes in one direction. If you edit enough, you can vote for a person you want to see on the board. Without money changing hands, you have the same representation you would under any other circumstances. The Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place indeed. What happens to members who don't pay? Are they prevented from editing? If there is no meaningful distinction in categorization of either one or the other, what exactly is the point in the first place, except to give those who are interested and active another membership ID in their wallet - and this is the point - which confers no additional rights or privileges? As to the suggestion above by SJ that "Real name" is a field to be filled in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be respected. As soon as you cross the line into a "real world" membership situation, that is undermined substantially, if not eliminated. To be sure, we have anonymous donors now. But that is a quid without a quo - it is a gift from an unknown individual to an organization they want to support. Membership cannot be sustained the same way for any valid reason...there is, again, no meaningful distinction. The essence of this openness to all will be lost as soon as an us/them dichotomy is established. It does not exist today, except as a relic of the bylaws which are long overdue to be changed. The badges of "membership" - if you give money, if you contribute to projects, if you volunteer for various positions in the organization - all exist independent of that. Other than providing a political means for takeover of the organization directly (and that's a whole other conversation), I don't see the point. The Apache model has some strengths, but my personal opinion is that the difference between producing software alone and producing encyclopedias, news, etc. yields a gap that is difficult to close. My hats are off to the Apache folks. But they have a much more narrow mission and fewer moving parts to achieve that mission. Different parts of the free culture movement are more or less affected by each undertaking of the Foundation, and are of varying degrees of interest to many. I think the Foundation's mission is simply too broad to decide to govern it through direct reliance on formalized elected constituencies. Creating representation from the existing pattern of projects is also inherently political. If the Foundation is successful, the massive trend will be towards languages and projects with many fewer articles and users now, and millions more speakers and writers worldwide yet to be connected. So, there is a shift ahead no matter which way you look at it, provided the projects continue to grow as they have. Those who are concerned about this kind of governance issue would be better served, I think, by focusing attention on board composition and expansion, as some have done. Jimmy and the other board members are of an open mind as to what the future of the board will be, what it will/should/could look like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this. We may disagree on various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization. -Brad -- Brad Patrick General Counsel & Interim Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com 727-231-0101