[Wikimedia-l] simple and effective creation process for chapters
hi, out of the experiences of creating 50 chapters, and the recent frustrated feedback from persons involved in the creation of new chapters, e.g. belgium and ghana, could we please find a simple and effective way to organize the chapters creation process? existing chapters not meeting the requirements have 3 years to adjust their bylaws. target and purpose of chapters: chapters match a country as defined by the league of nations defined in 1939 and reaffirmed by the united nations in 1945 [1], to follow local jurisdiction. they are membership organizations. requirements to be a chapter in the bylaws: * support the mission of the wmf * be a membership organization, i.e. the highest body is the assembly of members * be a member must be possible for everybody who contributes (i.e. edits, writes software used by wmf projects) at zero cost (or low cost, e.g. price of one meal?) * meet the tax exemption criteria. justification needed if not possible, reviewed regularly. * an audit committee, consisting of members, who are also allowed to seek professional help this means chapters can created within days, not years. the rules are clear right from the beginning. measures are already in place if something goes wrong. problems addressed: * creating a chapter is possible immediately one finds the legal minimum number of contributors in a country, most of the time 2 or 3. * the bylaw requirements guarantee contributors can easily join any time and no lockout can happen. negative example: german football federation, allowing a red bull club (rb leipzig) with 7 members, exorbitant membership fee, existing rb leipzig board decides who can become member. * proper names may be used immediately, current negative example: planning wikimedia ghana registers facebook, and other social accounts with a temporary name to gather people. the risk is that it is planning forever. later change of such accounts is nearly impossible without breaking history. * bank accounts with limited liability are used immediately, allowing to properly pursue misuse in local jurisdiction. negative example: kenya, where money disappeared from a personal account. * the bylaw requirements allow the inclusion or lockout of people not contributing at the chapters discretion. example: germany, switzerland allowing persons and even legal entities to become member. * it allows to organize itself in some federal way within a country, at the discretion of a chapter. * it guarantees to have the highest level of local jurisdiction control by meeting tax exemption criteria. examples: germany, uk. there critieria are in place which can be fulfilled, austria. criteria exist what cannot be matched, but discussions are ongoing to change the law. * initial signing of policies and contracts with the wmf is not required. using trademarks without approval is easily controlled by established procedures (legal, fdc, etc). the movement is used to deal with people and organizations trying to do that every day, in many countries. * contributing is easily and globally defined by commits, and edits, as currently used for elections [2] * no block is there by enforcing auditing costs, as well preventing a chapters board to appoint a best friend auditing firm. negative examples: enron, which was audited by arthur anderson, and anyway exploded. positive examples: wmf, using volunteers and kpmg, most chapters. * there is no different treatment of newborn chapters, chapters with experienced boards, and chapters who just changed the whole board. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013 kind regards, rupert. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] simple and effective creation process for chapters
rupert THURNER, 03/05/2014 09:02: requirements to be a chapter in the bylaws: * support the mission of the wmf * be a membership organization, i.e. the highest body is the assembly of members * be a member must be possible for everybody who contributes (i.e. edits, writes software used by wmf projects) at zero cost (or low cost, e.g. price of one meal?) * meet the tax exemption criteria. justification needed if not possible, reviewed regularly. * an audit committee, consisting of members, who are also allowed to seek professional help Considering that 4 of your 5 proposed requirements don't make sense to me, I question the ability of your proposal to reach the declared goal. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] simple and effective creation process for chapters
I would settle for an open process, rather than a secretive AffComm. Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 10:08:22 +0200 From: nemow...@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] simple and effective creation process for chapters rupert THURNER, 03/05/2014 09:02: requirements to be a chapter in the bylaws: * support the mission of the wmf * be a membership organization, i.e. the highest body is the assembly of members * be a member must be possible for everybody who contributes (i.e. edits, writes software used by wmf projects) at zero cost (or low cost, e.g. price of one meal?) * meet the tax exemption criteria. justification needed if not possible, reviewed regularly. * an audit committee, consisting of members, who are also allowed to seek professional help Considering that 4 of your 5 proposed requirements don't make sense to me, I question the ability of your proposal to reach the declared goal. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] simple and effective creation process for chapters
2014-05-03 11:56 GMT-03:00 Leigh Thelmadatter osama...@hotmail.com: I would settle for an open process, rather than a secretive AffComm. In Brazil, even trying to push an open process for years, even before AffComm existed, that didn't work. The problem is deeper. I am aware some simply gave up and jumped into other more pragmatic/do-ocratichttp://www.communitywiki.org/cw/DoOcracygroups to open up knowledge. :) -- Estamos na final do Desafio de Impacto Social Google | Brasil! Quer saber para onde vai o dinheiro dos nossos impostos? Ajude e vote http://goo.gl/EzcfhP We are a finalist of the Google Impact Challenge | Brazil. Where does the money from the Brazilian taxes go? Please, support us voting http://goo.gl/EzcfhP Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre http://br.okfn.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] simple and effective creation process for chapters
Thanks Rupert for thinking about this. The chapter creation process[0] is indeed under-going review following the Board's November decision, and all comments, input is welcome. There are some reasons that make it a bit difficult to enact your suggestions or to come to the results you suggest in the chapter creation process. Just to take one practical limiting factor, setting up an incorporated entity takes some time and money[1] even if Wikimedia itself did not add any further burdens. This was one of the reasons the non-incorporated user group concept was envisioned largely following along the lines you draw. (Membership organisations with wide trademark use rights, etc.) Best regards, Bence [0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide [1] http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploretopics/starting-a-business - not sure if there is an equivalent easily accessible study for membership organisations, but this is a good proxy On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: hi, out of the experiences of creating 50 chapters, and the recent frustrated feedback from persons involved in the creation of new chapters, e.g. belgium and ghana, could we please find a simple and effective way to organize the chapters creation process? existing chapters not meeting the requirements have 3 years to adjust their bylaws. target and purpose of chapters: chapters match a country as defined by the league of nations defined in 1939 and reaffirmed by the united nations in 1945 [1], to follow local jurisdiction. they are membership organizations. requirements to be a chapter in the bylaws: * support the mission of the wmf * be a membership organization, i.e. the highest body is the assembly of members * be a member must be possible for everybody who contributes (i.e. edits, writes software used by wmf projects) at zero cost (or low cost, e.g. price of one meal?) * meet the tax exemption criteria. justification needed if not possible, reviewed regularly. * an audit committee, consisting of members, who are also allowed to seek professional help this means chapters can created within days, not years. the rules are clear right from the beginning. measures are already in place if something goes wrong. problems addressed: * creating a chapter is possible immediately one finds the legal minimum number of contributors in a country, most of the time 2 or 3. * the bylaw requirements guarantee contributors can easily join any time and no lockout can happen. negative example: german football federation, allowing a red bull club (rb leipzig) with 7 members, exorbitant membership fee, existing rb leipzig board decides who can become member. * proper names may be used immediately, current negative example: planning wikimedia ghana registers facebook, and other social accounts with a temporary name to gather people. the risk is that it is planning forever. later change of such accounts is nearly impossible without breaking history. * bank accounts with limited liability are used immediately, allowing to properly pursue misuse in local jurisdiction. negative example: kenya, where money disappeared from a personal account. * the bylaw requirements allow the inclusion or lockout of people not contributing at the chapters discretion. example: germany, switzerland allowing persons and even legal entities to become member. * it allows to organize itself in some federal way within a country, at the discretion of a chapter. * it guarantees to have the highest level of local jurisdiction control by meeting tax exemption criteria. examples: germany, uk. there critieria are in place which can be fulfilled, austria. criteria exist what cannot be matched, but discussions are ongoing to change the law. * initial signing of policies and contracts with the wmf is not required. using trademarks without approval is easily controlled by established procedures (legal, fdc, etc). the movement is used to deal with people and organizations trying to do that every day, in many countries. * contributing is easily and globally defined by commits, and edits, as currently used for elections [2] * no block is there by enforcing auditing costs, as well preventing a chapters board to appoint a best friend auditing firm. negative examples: enron, which was audited by arthur anderson, and anyway exploded. positive examples: wmf, using volunteers and kpmg, most chapters. * there is no different treatment of newborn chapters, chapters with experienced boards, and chapters who just changed the whole board. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013 kind regards, rupert. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] simple and effective creation process for chapters
I am involved with a charity that sets up regional charities. We have a nominally clean procedure which can set up a charity in a few days. However a constantly changing legislative and regulatory environment can send the whole system back to square one. When we are dealing with a new legislative and regulatory environment for each chapter, the plan for a cookie-cutter approach is likely to founder at the first hurdle. Moreover cultural and demographic differences are even more diversifying. Regulatory constraints limit the sense in which a chapter, if it is to benefit from charitable, non-profit or tax exempt status, can be a membership organisation. On the other hand a simple association may meet most of the needs of a chapter, and they should not be weighed down with excess regulatory burden if that is all they need. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] simple and effective creation process for chapters
If this process is indeed really being revamped, may I ask why we give established chapters such dominance, even to the exclusion of the creation of less formal groups (user groups). As it stands, a chapter can (and in the case of Mexico, does) marginalize people and at least one educational institution which has issues with the way the chapter is run. This long-running saga has even resulted in COI problems with AffComm. These issues have not been addressed adequately (or at all) despite three years of what one board member called some friction. From: bdamo...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 19:49:20 +0200 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] simple and effective creation process for chapters Thanks Rupert for thinking about this. The chapter creation process[0] is indeed under-going review following the Board's November decision, and all comments, input is welcome. There are some reasons that make it a bit difficult to enact your suggestions or to come to the results you suggest in the chapter creation process. Just to take one practical limiting factor, setting up an incorporated entity takes some time and money[1] even if Wikimedia itself did not add any further burdens. This was one of the reasons the non-incorporated user group concept was envisioned largely following along the lines you draw. (Membership organisations with wide trademark use rights, etc.) Best regards, Bence [0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide [1] http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploretopics/starting-a-business - not sure if there is an equivalent easily accessible study for membership organisations, but this is a good proxy On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: hi, out of the experiences of creating 50 chapters, and the recent frustrated feedback from persons involved in the creation of new chapters, e.g. belgium and ghana, could we please find a simple and effective way to organize the chapters creation process? existing chapters not meeting the requirements have 3 years to adjust their bylaws. target and purpose of chapters: chapters match a country as defined by the league of nations defined in 1939 and reaffirmed by the united nations in 1945 [1], to follow local jurisdiction. they are membership organizations. requirements to be a chapter in the bylaws: * support the mission of the wmf * be a membership organization, i.e. the highest body is the assembly of members * be a member must be possible for everybody who contributes (i.e. edits, writes software used by wmf projects) at zero cost (or low cost, e.g. price of one meal?) * meet the tax exemption criteria. justification needed if not possible, reviewed regularly. * an audit committee, consisting of members, who are also allowed to seek professional help this means chapters can created within days, not years. the rules are clear right from the beginning. measures are already in place if something goes wrong. problems addressed: * creating a chapter is possible immediately one finds the legal minimum number of contributors in a country, most of the time 2 or 3. * the bylaw requirements guarantee contributors can easily join any time and no lockout can happen. negative example: german football federation, allowing a red bull club (rb leipzig) with 7 members, exorbitant membership fee, existing rb leipzig board decides who can become member. * proper names may be used immediately, current negative example: planning wikimedia ghana registers facebook, and other social accounts with a temporary name to gather people. the risk is that it is planning forever. later change of such accounts is nearly impossible without breaking history. * bank accounts with limited liability are used immediately, allowing to properly pursue misuse in local jurisdiction. negative example: kenya, where money disappeared from a personal account. * the bylaw requirements allow the inclusion or lockout of people not contributing at the chapters discretion. example: germany, switzerland allowing persons and even legal entities to become member. * it allows to organize itself in some federal way within a country, at the discretion of a chapter. * it guarantees to have the highest level of local jurisdiction control by meeting tax exemption criteria. examples: germany, uk. there critieria are in place which can be fulfilled, austria. criteria exist what cannot be matched, but discussions are ongoing to change the law. * initial signing of policies and contracts with the wmf is not required. using trademarks without approval is easily controlled by established procedures (legal, fdc, etc). the movement is used to deal with people and organizations trying to do that every
