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

[Kelly Martin]

On 6/18/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Various possibilities lie ahead. One is that we adopt legal membership
> with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. If this is done in
> the name of remaining "open", it's just as possible that in doing so
> we'd be departing from our openness toward those who value their
> privacy. Another possibility in the scenario is that depending on how
> membership is determined, including cost, we may find that relatively
> few people "join". At which point it becomes obvious that despite this
> effort, some people will choose to complain that the community is not
> represented in Foundation affairs, and it may seem that the entire
> exercise was valueless. It should also be observed that any definition
> of Foundation membership which is not coextensive with the community
> (and I don't see how gaps can be avoided) has the potential to
> factionalize people along the lines created by these fissures. A
> community divided over member vs. non-member, rich vs. poor, out vs.
> closeted, or other potential distinctions is certainly a possibility.
>
> Or, finally, after considering the benefits and drawbacks of legal
> membership, we might choose a path without using it. Certainly the
> Wikimedia Foundation needs to incorporate the community into its
> functions, but it ought to be possible to do that, formally or
> informally, in ways that avoid the drawbacks of the legal regime. We
> might even occasionally talk in terms of members, but ultimately should
> be careful to disavow the statutory definition if we follow this course.

Does Florida law require that member of nonprofits be actual persons?
A nonprofit I used to work for (a national organization) had as its
members the 50 state organizations of which it was comprised.  Perhaps
the members of Wikimedia should be the various national organizations
which already exist, as corporate entities.

Kelly