[Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 6/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Not sure anyone realise that here, but... my suggestion to go for a
> model such as the Apache Foundation is not entirely gratuitious.
>
> 2 years ago, I have been elected to represent the Foundation members.
> For a little while, I tried to set up the membership stuff and some of
> you may remember the discussion around the member dues.
> That discussion went nowhere. So, for a year, Angela represented all of
> you and I represented no one :-)
>
> At the following elections, we just dropped these two notions of
> volunteer representative/member representative.
>
You seem to be implying here that the original bylaws only provided
for "contributing" members.  This is incorrect.  According to the
original bylaws, "all persons interested in supporting the activities
of the Foundation who have contributed under a user name to any
Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request deadline" are
volunteer members.  Angela represented the volunteer members.  You
represented both the volunteer members *and* the contributing active
members (of which there were none).

> Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally
> inappropriate. In short, they need to be *changed*.
> I invite you to have a good look at them, and in particular to the whole
> sections about membership :
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
>
> Does that section fit with reality ?
>
It provides for a type of member which doesn't exist, and in my
opinion should not exist.  It needs to be modified, but it doesn't
*have* to be completely overhauled.

> Since these bylaws needed many changes (not only on the membership
> part), a new draft has been proposed and is currently on the board wiki.
>
> This new version has a very short "membership section".
>
[snip]
> ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
> The Foundation shall have no members.
>

So the original bylaws had *everyone* as members, and the proposed new
bylaws have *no one* as members.  Unfortunately, it seems to be
possible for three members of the board to make this change.  I urge
all the board members to vote against it.  At the very least, I hope
the board will first poll the current membership (the community) to
see what they think about the idea.

> The second version of the bylaws (the ones standing on the board wiki)
> is the same (it would make no difference in terms of board of trustees
> organisation), but for pointing out a reality : there is no Foundation
> membership.
>
That is only the reality of the situation because the board has made
it so.  According to the bylaws, the membership "shall consist of all
persons interested in supporting the activities of the Foundation who
have contributed under a user name to any Wikimedia project prior to
the election ballot request deadline. The only other qualification for
membership shall be the creation of a user account on some Wikimedia
project. Volunteer Active Members shall have all the privileges of
active members."

Now, admittedly, it was a bad idea making the membership this broad.
At the least, one should be required to submit an application
providing ones identity.  But to say that the fact that the membership
is defined too broadly is equivalent to there being no membership at
all is not at all valid.

> Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
> Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
> on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
> model...but well...) and would privilege addition of famous or wealthy
> members in the future.
> DON'T GET ME WRONG ! Right now, the majority of board members wish very
> much that there be community members on the board... but that's in good
> part because we are currently still 5 members. Now, imagine we add 2
> famous guys. We'll have a board of 7 with 2 from the community only.
> Then, imagine we add 2 other big guys. The community part will be 2/9.
> Of course, the addition could be of 2 guys from the community. In such
> case, they would be appointed.
>
> What I mean to say is that in this model, the community existence would
> really be recognised up to 2 people, which would be elected by the
> community. The rest of the members would come from an internal decision.
> Self-appointing board... with no terms limit.
>

Again I think your terminology is confusing.  Right now there are 4
members of the board who are part of the community, and there is 1
member who very well might not be on the board much longer.  Only 2
members of the board were *voted in* by the community, but that
doesn't mean they are the only members who are part of the community.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  It makes absolutely no
sense to have any board members who aren't members of the community.
I can't for the life of me imagine why the hell anyone would want
that, and I haven't heard anyone explain it either.

> The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
> Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
> garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a
> collective running. This is very much the model of our local
> associations in Europe... and that might be where the problem lies. I
> think the model of Associations (public/members) is very much european;
> whilst the model of Foundation (private/upon appointement) is very much
> american and hard to understand by europeans.
>

I don't think the American/European dichotomy is a valid one.  There
are a large number of membership non-profit organizations in the
United States.  In fact, I'd guess most public charities in the US are
membership based organizations.

Now maybe it's true that Europeans don't have very many private
non-membership foundations.  I don't know about this.

> I would prefer the second model myself, but I will NOT fight for it
> *alone*. I will not alone try to push for a system if there is no
> *active* support. I will not try to set up a scheme to see it abandonned
> on the board wiki.
>
I don't think very many of the current members (let's say, everyone
who voted in one of the two elections) are aware that there is
currently a proposal to take away their membership.  I'll have to
think about how best to publicise this.

> As I can not be sure whether it would be the best choice for the
> Foundation, I tried to see how I would appreciate each model as an
> individual and I invite you guys to do the same with self-honesty
> (estimate which one would be best for the general good and which one
> would be best for you).
>
If the foundation explicitly drops its members I think the community
will grow more and more distant.  I think at some point there will be
a fork, and the foundation will lose everything but a couple
now-worthless trademarks.

If the foundation adopts a membership model, I don't think there will
be a fork.  Ultimately I don't know if this is a good thing or not,
though.  That depends on how effectively the model is implemented.

Anthony