Mission & Vision statement updated

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
53 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updated

Anthony DiPierro
On 4/26/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > > Just a quick point here: the Foundation may not change its mission  statement
> > > without an official determination letter from the IRS.
> >
> > Can you please provide us with the law or regulation which says this?
> > Can you also let us know the methods by which one can obtain such a
> > determination letter?  Are you saying an entirely new Form 1023 has to
> > be submitted?
>
> I don't know the details, but it is common sense that such a law
> exists. I can't found a charity to help cure cancer, get lots of
> donations, and then change the charity to one that provides caviare to
> aristocrats.

No, you obviously can't change a charity into a non-charity without
getting into trouble with the IRS.  But that doesn't mean that you
need IRS approval to make any change to your mission statement.

> Once you start accepting public donations, you have to
> spend those donations on what you said you would spend them on.
>
I'm sure this is a valid legal principle, but it has nothing to do
with the IRS.  I'm only an expert in tax law, so I don't really know
the specifics about this principle.

> I don't know if the changes that have been made are significant enough
> to be a problem, but it is certainly something that requires talking
> to a lawyer.
>
I don't disagree with that.  But what Danny said was something very
specific which I frankly have never heard of.  He said that "the
Foundation may not change its mission statement without an official
determination letter from the IRS".  This may very well be true, but
if so I think it would benefit us if he provided more details on it.
OTOH, if it's just something he made up or thought he heard from
somewhere or something he assumes must be true based on "common
sense", I think we should know that as well.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updated

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On 4/26/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > > Just a quick point here: the Foundation may not change its mission  statement
> > > without an official determination letter from the IRS.
> >
> > Can you please provide us with the law or regulation which says this?
> > Can you also let us know the methods by which one can obtain such a
> > determination letter?  Are you saying an entirely new Form 1023 has to
> > be submitted?
>
> I don't know the details, but it is common sense that such a law
> exists.

Some more information, from the IRS website:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=123213,00.html

"The IRS will rule on the tax consequence of proposed changes to an
organization's purposes or activities. Thus, if you are unsure about
whether proposed changes are consistent with your status as an exempt
organization or as a public charity (if applicable), you may want to
request a private letter ruling or determination letter."

"In some areas, the law requires that an organization notify the
Internal Revenue Service or receive an advance determination before
undertaking a transaction resulting in certain tax consequences."

A list of activities follows.  Rather than quote them all, if you're
interested you can go to that link.  The revenue procedure at
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rp2007-4.pdf is also fun reading.
I'll leave it up to you to decide how to apply this to the
foundation's situation, rather than pull out all those fun disclaimers
about how this is not a covered opinion.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement update

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
On 4/26/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:


> I do not think anyone can reasonably claim that the change came as a
> total surprise. The issue of updating the mission statement has been
> mentionned as early as october 2006.

Quite the contrary, I most specifically claimed that the specific
emendation of "free licence" to "free content licence" was made in a
fashion that did not observe the niceties of feedback from the
community in any reasonable form. That "change" is the only *change*
that I am challenging, and _yes_ I do think it is reasonable to claim
that it will have not been reviewed by any great section of the
community in any significant way.

The change that stood unchallenged, which Erik linked to as the
unstable mission statement, was from my viewpoint quite fine. I
had/have no objection to that one, and no, that version can not be
reasonably claimed to have surprised anyone.

*But* that is not the version you enacted.


> Now, no one is claiming the new one is perfect. Kat herself is not fully
> happy with it. I am not 100% happy either, even if I prefer it to the
> previous one. For example, I am embarassed by the restriction caused by
> the use of the words "educational content", because wikinews is more
> about "informational content" than about "educational content".
>
> However, the previous statement basically limited ourselves to be wiki
> projects hosting providers (is dedicated to the development and
> maintenance. To encourage the further growth and development of open
> content, social sofware WikiWiki-based projects and to provide the full
> contents of those projects to the public free of charge).
>
> Do you really think this is ONLY what we want to be ? That this is ONLY
> what we want to do ? Being host providers ?
> I do not think so.
>
> I think many of us also wants the Foundation to push the distribution
> and the dissemination of content beyond online. I think many of us also
> wants to be freedom advocates. I think many of us want to develop a
> global awareness, partly thanks to the collaboration with the chapters.
>
> All this was not in the previous statement.
>
>
>
> We wondered whether to wait again till everyone is 100% happy (which may
> be an unreachable dream), or to update the statement to better fit what
> we think the Foundation is about. Some of you have noticed that we are
> not always very quick to do things and to take decisions
> (understatement). I do believe that when we are "reasonably" happy, we
> should avoid waiting forever to take a decision. In particular for
> issues which can be changed in the future.

This is precisely my point. "In particular fo issues which can be
changed in the future." In my view the bad change is being done right
now. It is not a case of adding later what we failed to do now, but a
case of not doing now what should never have been done in the first
place. Can you understand the distinction?

> I will add that whilst we knew that Kat was not fully happy with it, the
> call for comment and participation did not provide much feedback, so we
> had the reasonable expectation that the change was okay for most.
> Hence the decision to update it.
>
>
>
> Now, this is not graved in stone. You want to discuss it ? Discuss it.
> Put a new version on meta. Call for feedback. Get a new agreement. No
> problem. Once a new version seems to be reasonably approved and
> preferable to the current new version, it may be updated in the bylaws.
> Elections are a perfect time to do that. Please do be an actor on this.
>
>
> As for me, I think that this statement is 90% good. In comparison, staff
> situation is maybe 60% good. Governance is perhaps 30% good. I prefer
> focusing my attention on what is really really broken, than getting a
> 90% satisfaction to 95%. But do keep the discussion open please Cimon.
>

I think you know me well enough to trust I will do precisely that.

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement update

Anthony DiPierro
On 4/26/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4/26/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> > I do not think anyone can reasonably claim that the change came as a
> > total surprise. The issue of updating the mission statement has been
> > mentionned as early as october 2006.
>
> Quite the contrary, I most specifically claimed that the specific
> emendation of "free licence" to "free content licence" was made in a
> fashion that did not observe the niceties of feedback from the
> community in any reasonable form. That "change" is the only *change*
> that I am challenging, and _yes_ I do think it is reasonable to claim
> that it will have not been reviewed by any great section of the
> community in any significant way.
>
Am I the only one who is confused as to what the significance of the
change from "free license" to "free content license" means?  I've read
the discussion by you and Erik on this, but I still don't get it.

Erik says this is a clarification.  What was unclear which is being clarified?

Jussi-Ville says that the change eliminates "content in formats that
are under free licence".  What would be an example of such content?
Does this mean the WMF would support non-free content under an open
format?  Or are you saying that the new language allows for free
content in non-free formats?

Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updated

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
> > I don't know the details, but it is common sense that such a law
> > exists. I can't found a charity to help cure cancer, get lots of
> > donations, and then change the charity to one that provides caviare to
> > aristocrats.
>
> No, you obviously can't change a charity into a non-charity without
> getting into trouble with the IRS.  But that doesn't mean that you
> need IRS approval to make any change to your mission statement.

I said going from a cancer charity to a caviare *charity*. Any
non-profit organisation that follows the appropriate rules can be a
charity, there is no legal connection between "charity" and the
subjective concept of "good cause".

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement update

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
On 4/26/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4/26/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 4/26/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I do not think anyone can reasonably claim that the change came as a
> > > total surprise. The issue of updating the mission statement has been
> > > mentionned as early as october 2006.
> >
> > Quite the contrary, I most specifically claimed that the specific
> > emendation of "free licence" to "free content licence" was made in a
> > fashion that did not observe the niceties of feedback from the
> > community in any reasonable form. That "change" is the only *change*
> > that I am challenging, and _yes_ I do think it is reasonable to claim
> > that it will have not been reviewed by any great section of the
> > community in any significant way.
> >
> Am I the only one who is confused as to what the significance of the
> change from "free license" to "free content license" means?  I've read
> the discussion by you and Erik on this, but I still don't get it.
>
> Erik says this is a clarification.  What was unclear which is being
> clarified?

I think this is the crux of the matter. If the intent is to uphold the
longstanding stance we have been keeping, as attested by numerous
postings on the list by many figures of stature within wikimedia
operations, that we do infact take a clear stance against encumbered
file formats, this is not a clarification at all, but can be (perhaps
contrivedly, but nevertheless) interpreted as retreating from support
of formats that are unemcumbered. If that is the gloss put on the
change of language by those outside our community, that would be sad
indeed.

> Jussi-Ville says that the change eliminates "content in formats that
> are under free licence".  What would be an example of such content?
> Does this mean the WMF would support non-free content under an open
> format?  Or are you saying that the new language allows for free
> content in non-free formats?

No, to be precise, I don't think the change eliminates content, but it
does remove explicit commitment to formats under free licence. If it
did not, why would Eric state that "adding" coverage of the same would
be something we could envision in the future.

My understanding is that "free licence" covered also the file formats
being unencumbered, and specifying that *only* the content need be
freely licenced is a backtracking of a serious significance.


--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updated

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>>Just a quick point here: the Foundation may not change its mission  statement
>>>without an official determination letter from the IRS.
>>>      
>>>
>>Can you please provide us with the law or regulation which says this?
>>Can you also let us know the methods by which one can obtain such a
>>determination letter?  Are you saying an entirely new Form 1023 has to
>>be submitted?
>>    
>>
>I don't know the details, but it is common sense that such a law
>exists.
>
This is a dangerous assumption to make when dealing with law.  The
legislators who write the laws have on occasion been known to have some
very serious lapses of common sense. :-)

In tax law it is not unusual to base interpretation of the law on a
strict literal interpretation of a statute.

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updated

Mark
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>>I don't know the details, but it is common sense that such a law
>>>exists. I can't found a charity to help cure cancer, get lots of
>>>donations, and then change the charity to one that provides caviare to
>>>aristocrats.
>>>      
>>>
>>No, you obviously can't change a charity into a non-charity without
>>getting into trouble with the IRS.  But that doesn't mean that you
>>need IRS approval to make any change to your mission statement.
>>    
>>
>
>I said going from a cancer charity to a caviare *charity*. Any
>non-profit organisation that follows the appropriate rules can be a
>charity, there is no legal connection between "charity" and the
>subjective concept of "good cause".
>  
>
There is actually, at least under U.S. law, a definition of "public
charity", which is the category the Wikimedia Foundation falls under,
and such charities must dedicate themselves to "public purposes", which
have some more detailed definitions but would almost certainly not
include a "caviar for aristocrats" purpose.  So of course the Foundation
could not change its purpose from that of a public charity to something
not a public charity without compromising its current status.  But the
question is whether *any* change needs to be vetted in advance by the
IRS to verify that this hasn't happened, which is a separate matter.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updated

Thomas Dalton
> There is actually, at least under U.S. law, a definition of "public
> charity", which is the category the Wikimedia Foundation falls under,
> and such charities must dedicate themselves to "public purposes", which
> have some more detailed definitions but would almost certainly not
> include a "caviar for aristocrats" purpose.  So of course the Foundation
> could not change its purpose from that of a public charity to something
> not a public charity without compromising its current status.  But the
> question is whether *any* change needs to be vetted in advance by the
> IRS to verify that this hasn't happened, which is a separate matter.

That's as may be (I don't believe that's the case under UK law, which
is what I was going by, but US law could well be different), but it
doesn't really make any difference. If I donate money to a charity,
they cannot use that money to do something I haven't given permission
for, however charitable it may be. If I donate to a charity to provide
fun activities for children aged 7-10 and they let 11 year olds in, I
can sue.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updated

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On 4/27/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > There is actually, at least under U.S. law, a definition of "public
> > charity", which is the category the Wikimedia Foundation falls under,
> > and such charities must dedicate themselves to "public purposes", which
> > have some more detailed definitions but would almost certainly not
> > include a "caviar for aristocrats" purpose.  So of course the Foundation
> > could not change its purpose from that of a public charity to something
> > not a public charity without compromising its current status.  But the
> > question is whether *any* change needs to be vetted in advance by the
> > IRS to verify that this hasn't happened, which is a separate matter.
>
> That's as may be (I don't believe that's the case under UK law, which
> is what I was going by, but US law could well be different), but it
> doesn't really make any difference. If I donate money to a charity,
> they cannot use that money to do something I haven't given permission
> for, however charitable it may be. If I donate to a charity to provide
> fun activities for children aged 7-10 and they let 11 year olds in, I
> can sue.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updated

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On 4/26/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That's as may be (I don't believe that's the case under UK law, which
> is what I was going by, but US law could well be different), but it
> doesn't really make any difference. If I donate money to a charity,
> they cannot use that money to do something I haven't given permission
> for, however charitable it may be. If I donate to a charity to provide
> fun activities for children aged 7-10 and they let 11 year olds in, I
> can sue.

In the US charity assets are divided into restricted and unrestricted
funds.  Restricted assets can only be used for the specific purpose
designated by the donor.  Unrestricted assets are "freely available to
a charity for its general purposes".  The vast majority of Wikimedia's
assets were unrestricted, as of (and according to) the last publically
available financial statements.

There are still some restrictions on what a foundation can do with
"unrestricted assets", of course.  As Kelly Martin pointed out, for
instance, a foundation can only use its funds in a way which is
consistent with its purpose as designated in its articles of
incorporation.  A mission statement, therefore, should be functionally
equivalent to the purpose in the articles of incorporation, or else be
a subset of it.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updated

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On 4/26/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > > I don't know the details, but it is common sense that such a law
> > > exists. I can't found a charity to help cure cancer, get lots of
> > > donations, and then change the charity to one that provides caviare to
> > > aristocrats.
> >
> > No, you obviously can't change a charity into a non-charity without
> > getting into trouble with the IRS.  But that doesn't mean that you
> > need IRS approval to make any change to your mission statement.
>
> I said going from a cancer charity to a caviare *charity*. Any
> non-profit organisation that follows the appropriate rules can be a
> charity, there is no legal connection between "charity" and the
> subjective concept of "good cause".
>
Well, I'm not convinced that providing caviar(*) to aristocrats would
ever be considered a charitable purpose by the IRS.  But if it is,
then I don't see any reason the IRS would have a problem with it.
State law governing non-profit organizations, on the other hand, might
very well have something to say about it.

I also don't think the example you gave is anything remotely close to
the situation at hand.

Anthony

(*) You were talking about caviar, right?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updated

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On 4/26/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In my opinion this is simply not good enough. If you are of the
> opinion that we do _not_ need to specify that we are *only* interested
> in keeping the *content* under a free licence, why "clarify" the
> sentence by adding that specific word "content" there, when a
> reasonable reading - and I do think my reading is reasonable - will
> contend that adding "content" in there is a specific disinclusion of a
> requirement for free formats, and thus a radical shift in policy.

No, you are very confused. The only reason the word "content" was
inserted here was to avoid the confusion between a "free content
license" and a "freely available license". That was discussed in one
of the threads I linked to. It has nothing to do with free formats.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement update

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<rant>First of all, I want to rant about something.  I typed
"Wikimedia mission statement" into google, and of course the first
hits I get are from Wikipedia and have nothing to do with Wikimedia.
Sucks, but that's not what my rant is about.  My rant is about the
next set of hits:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mission_statement  It's some
page that hasn't been updated in almost a year that says "Please use
this page to propose ideas for establishing a Wikimedia mission
statement."  Then the third set of hits goes to
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement, which has the
*old* version of the mission statement.  The sites are filled with
this outdated stuff.  It's really annoying.  It's certainly not
helping the communication problems that started this very thread.  And
I can't even edit all of it.  End of rant.</rant>

On 4/26/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 4/26/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Erik says this is a clarification.  What was unclear which is being
> > clarified?
>
> I think this is the crux of the matter.
>
I hope we can get an answer from Erik before assuming anything, then.

> > Jussi-Ville says that the change eliminates "content in formats that
> > are under free licence".  What would be an example of such content?
> > Does this mean the WMF would support non-free content under an open
> > format?  Or are you saying that the new language allows for free
> > content in non-free formats?
>
> No, to be precise, I don't think the change eliminates content, but it
> does remove explicit commitment to formats under free licence. If it
> did not, why would Eric state that "adding" coverage of the same would
> be something we could envision in the future.
>
> My understanding is that "free licence" covered also the file formats
> being unencumbered, and specifying that *only* the content need be
> freely licenced is a backtracking of a serious significance.
>
I had a pretty long response here, but I'm going to remove it because
I think I'm just misreading something.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement update

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Once again, the change was made based on discussions on this very list
about the ambiguity of "free license":
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026691.html
(and following); it has nothing to do with formats.

On 4/26/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4/26/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 4/26/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 4/26/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I do not think anyone can reasonably claim that the change came as a
> > > > total surprise. The issue of updating the mission statement has been
> > > > mentionned as early as october 2006.
> > >
> > > Quite the contrary, I most specifically claimed that the specific
> > > emendation of "free licence" to "free content licence" was made in a
> > > fashion that did not observe the niceties of feedback from the
> > > community in any reasonable form. That "change" is the only *change*
> > > that I am challenging, and _yes_ I do think it is reasonable to claim
> > > that it will have not been reviewed by any great section of the
> > > community in any significant way.
> > >
> > Am I the only one who is confused as to what the significance of the
> > change from "free license" to "free content license" means?  I've read
> > the discussion by you and Erik on this, but I still don't get it.
> >
> > Erik says this is a clarification.  What was unclear which is being
> > clarified?
>
> I think this is the crux of the matter. If the intent is to uphold the
> longstanding stance we have been keeping, as attested by numerous
> postings on the list by many figures of stature within wikimedia
> operations, that we do infact take a clear stance against encumbered
> file formats, this is not a clarification at all, but can be (perhaps
> contrivedly, but nevertheless) interpreted as retreating from support
> of formats that are unemcumbered. If that is the gloss put on the
> change of language by those outside our community, that would be sad
> indeed.
>
> > Jussi-Ville says that the change eliminates "content in formats that
> > are under free licence".  What would be an example of such content?
> > Does this mean the WMF would support non-free content under an open
> > format?  Or are you saying that the new language allows for free
> > content in non-free formats?
>
> No, to be precise, I don't think the change eliminates content, but it
> does remove explicit commitment to formats under free licence. If it
> did not, why would Eric state that "adding" coverage of the same would
> be something we could envision in the future.
>
> My understanding is that "free licence" covered also the file formats
> being unencumbered, and specifying that *only* the content need be
> freely licenced is a backtracking of a serious significance.
>
>
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement update

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On 4/27/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Once again, the change was made based on discussions on this very list
> about the ambiguity of "free license":
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026691.html
> (and following); it has nothing to do with formats.

Based on that discussion? I find that very hard to credit.

"I think that using "free content" is an improvement over "free
licenses", but I don't think that it is especially good.  As Tim
Starling likes to point out: Content can't have freedom, people can...
The words "Free Content" are effectively a domain specific jargon, and
I think our mission statement should be free of such jargon. I think
the best way to avoid the jargon is to just say what we mean."

This was a seminal statement in that discussion. How can you honestly
claim the current change is "based" on that discussion?


--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement update

Erik Moeller-4
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission/Unstable&diff=508661&oldid=506609


On 4/27/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4/27/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Once again, the change was made based on discussions on this very list
> > about the ambiguity of "free license":
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026691.html
> > (and following); it has nothing to do with formats.
>
> Based on that discussion? I find that very hard to credit.
>
> "I think that using "free content" is an improvement over "free
> licenses", but I don't think that it is especially good.  As Tim
> Starling likes to point out: Content can't have freedom, people can...
> The words "Free Content" are effectively a domain specific jargon, and
> I think our mission statement should be free of such jargon. I think
> the best way to avoid the jargon is to just say what we mean."
>
> This was a seminal statement in that discussion. How can you honestly
> claim the current change is "based" on that discussion?
>
>
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement update

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On 4/27/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Once again, the change was made based on discussions on this very list
>> about the ambiguity of "free license":
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026691.html
>> (and following); it has nothing to do with formats.
>
> Based on that discussion? I find that very hard to credit.
>
> "I think that using "free content" is an improvement over "free
> licenses", but I don't think that it is especially good.  As Tim
> Starling likes to point out: Content can't have freedom, people can...
> The words "Free Content" are effectively a domain specific jargon, and
> I think our mission statement should be free of such jargon. I think
> the best way to avoid the jargon is to just say what we mean."
>
> This was a seminal statement in that discussion. How can you honestly
> claim the current change is "based" on that discussion?
>
>
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]


side note

Apparently, campaigning is now open. If you plan to candidate, please
join the fun !


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updated

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>There is actually, at least under U.S. law, a definition of "public
>>charity", which is the category the Wikimedia Foundation falls under,
>>and such charities must dedicate themselves to "public purposes", which
>>have some more detailed definitions but would almost certainly not
>>include a "caviar for aristocrats" purpose.  So of course the Foundation
>>could not change its purpose from that of a public charity to something
>>not a public charity without compromising its current status.  But the
>>question is whether *any* change needs to be vetted in advance by the
>>IRS to verify that this hasn't happened, which is a separate matter.
>>    
>>
>That's as may be (I don't believe that's the case under UK law, which
>is what I was going by, but US law could well be different), but it
>doesn't really make any difference. If I donate money to a charity,
>they cannot use that money to do something I haven't given permission
>for, however charitable it may be. If I donate to a charity to provide
>fun activities for children aged 7-10 and they let 11 year olds in, I
>can sue.
>
At that rate you should soon be insisting that the kids that go trick or
treating on your neighborhood on Hallowe'en be carrying secure
identification to make sure they are not over age. :-)

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mission & Vision statement updat

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
On 4/27/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> side note
>
> Apparently, campaigning is now open. If you plan to candidate, please
> join the fun !

If I have not made my position clear; let me make it absolutely
crystal clear right now. I will attempt to push, cajole, inveigle and
entice Daniel Mayer to run for the board, and if successful in that
endeavour, will tirelessly campaign on his behalf to the best of my
ability, if he will accept my help.


--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123