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

[Anthere]

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> 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).

My memory is that I represented only contributing active...so no one.
But the whole issue has been dropped down anyway, so it does not matter 
at all, *except* that this is still what is in the bylaws.

>>Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally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.

True. No more than 50% needs rewritting ;-)

>>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.

What the f*** do you think I am currently doing Anthony ???

It does not need to do any poll of some sort. I am *trying* desperately 
to make some of you react and help on the matter. Thanks for Sj and you 
to have answered.

Clearly, aside from Delphine basically, no one is interested in 
discussing the Apache model. My question for the next week is whether I 
make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the 
board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.


>>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.

I agree.
Now, who is interested in making the application ?
And who is interested in filling up the database of members with the 
paper forms ?
These are practical issues.
Another practical issue is that I am currently the only board member 
interested in trying to do that. Given that trying to rewrite bylaws is 
meant to take a few hours, I'd be happy to know what you guys think and 
what other board members think.

And I get mostly silence.

>>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 am a bit confused here. I think only JImbo, Angela and myself 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.

It does make sense to have famous members on the board so as to improve 
our image in terms of professionalism. Because these guys may be great 
strategists. Because they can bring us the weight of another 
organisation which would improve our own standing. Because they could 
help us get more funds. Because they could help in bringing another 
vision or another perspective that current members of the community do 
not have.

>>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 know only membership associations in France. Foundations are very very 
very unusual in France at least. Usually, there are created by big 
bosses who need to use part of their commercial benefits in a charity.


>>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.

Since there will still be two elected members, I think most would not care.


We can expect two resignations in the year coming. And expansion of the 
board by 2 more members.
Last proposal by Jimbo is 2 elected members, 4 appointed and himself.
There is no mention in bylaws of way to remove appointed members. 
Elected are renewed every 2 years.

My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a 
clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the 
elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the 
ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).

Angela wishes us to keep some elected members. I am not exactly sure of 
more.

Tim and Michael did not give their opinion.

My proposal implies a modification of the bylaws. So, it implies a new 
proposition AND that board members vote.
Jimbo's proposition is consistant with current bylaws I think.

So, if there are no new bylaws, by default you may expect 2 elected and 
5 appointed soon. Possibly next year, 2 elected and 7 appointed.

>>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 explicitely drops members, I think more associations 
will erupt. The Foundation will have its own life with big guys, staff 
and those of us with clear political goals, and the associations will 
have other lives, with the community input.

At least, that is a possibility :-)

> 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