[Foundation-l] A PC instead of a VC

Dan Rosenthal swatjester at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 15:18:37 UTC 2008

The difference between ChapCom and LangCom, and the VC's are that the  
end result of their actions are merely the opening/closing of chapters  
or languages (I'm sure I'm insulting someone from those two committees  
by oversimplification, but please bear out the whole analogy), whereas  
with the VC, the end result of their actions are the representation  
and advisement of the community as a whole to the board, something  
significantly more important. Surely you can understand the difference  
here. The existing committees don't affect anything that could cause  
significant legal problems for the foundation, whereas the VC  
potentially does. It would be rash to proceed at all without viewing  
the creation of any such representative body through the lens of  
what's acceptable legally, and for that  we need Mike's (or someone  
else's) opinion.

On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Dan Rosenthal  
> <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Except it's dangerous to assume that such authority cannot be implied
>> in law, even when not expressly granted. From everything I've been
>> reading here we're not at all talking about a group of volunteers who
>> are interested in helping the projects, but rather a group of
>> representatives who are interested in being the voice of the projects
>> to the board, and under some interpretations, having control over the
>> board. That's something that might imply responsibility.
> Why aren't people freaking out about the existing committees then? The
> chapcom plays a role, at least an ad hoc one, of helping to represent
> prospective chapters to the board, and serve as a communication medium
> between chapters and the board. Does that mean that the chapcom is
> some kind of legal entity, or some kind of legal liability? If the
> chapcom makes suggestions to the board that the board follows, does
> that imply that the chapcom has control over the board?
> The languages subcommittee acts as a representative for people
> planning to create new language projects, and makes suggestions to the
> board. Does that mean that the languages subcommittee is in control of
> the board? Is this a legal liability? What about the communications
> committee too?
> If what you say about the PVC being a potential legal problem is true,
> then it seems like we are already having that problem. If we follow
> the assumption that the PVC is just an advisory position like any of
> the other committees, then it avoids all the legal problems that the
> committees avoid.
> --Andrew Whitworth
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list