User:Michael Snow/Candidate statement and discussion

I offer here a statement about my reasons for running for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, and my abilities and qualifications related to this position.

To ask me questions about my candidacy, please post your question in the Discussion section below. I speak English, French, and German, so questions in all of those languages are welcome. I can also try reading Italian or Spanish, although I'm not completely fluent in those. I may choose to answer questions in English, to be more precise in my statements and allow more people to understand them (if this is a problem for you, let me know with your question, and I can answer in a different language). My responses to questions will be posted on this page, so that anyone can read them.

Statement by the candidate

The elected positions on the Board of Trustees represent the community as a whole. I think it is critical that the representatives listen carefully to user interests and concerns. We need someone who will represent community interests on the Foundation, and communicate back to the community about Foundation activities. I plan to work diligently and always be available and responsive when people have Foundation-related issues to discuss. I also want to make sure that we do not neglect projects other than Wikipedias, or languages other than English. We need to organize things so that all of our projects have the resources they need to succeed.

Professionally, I am a lawyer, and I believe the Wikimedia Foundation would benefit greatly from having a lawyer on the Board. My legal perspective would help the Foundation with issues related to the operation of a non-profit organization. For example, we need to achieve and maintain tax-exempt status, to encourage donations, and then make sure that donations are used appropriately for the Foundation's charitable purposes. Also, because all of the Foundation's operations involve the handling of intellectual property, I can bring valuable expertise to the Board in dealing with these issues. My professional training and practical experience in these matters would be valuable to have on the Board of Trustees.

I hope that you will support me for Contributing Active Member Representative to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. The Foundation has many great projects, yet has barely tapped its potential - I want to help us achieve that potential.

Thank you,
Michael Snow

Discussion

Treasurer position

Thanks for running - it has taken the pressure off of me to run. :-) My personality type (INTJ) would have forced me to run for the Contributing Active Member Rep if somebody like you (there are only a few people I regard as highly as you) had not decided to run. I also think that Arno will be an excellent choice for Volunteer User Rep. The only problem I see is that I am the de facto Wikimedia treasurer already. Is this a role you would be interested in? Another idea would be for a change in the by-laws to allow the Trustees to appoint officers that then would have to be approved by the membership. --mav 21:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the bylaws provide that the Board of Trustees will designate one of the trustees as Treasurer. I'm not going to presume that would be me, but I am willing to function in that capacity. To the extent that involves assuming duties you currently fulfill, I'm sure an orderly transition can be arranged, leaving you more time for other contributions to the project. Also, I expect that the Treasurer could make use of assistance, either from volunteers or someday, paid staff. I'm not sure that a change in the bylaws would be needed to do that, and in any case the Board has the power to change the bylaws if necessary.

I appreciate the kind words as well. Regarding the position of Volunteer User Representative, I am not personally going to comment on any candidate. I am not running as part of a "ticket" with anyone, and I respect any candidate who may choose to run for either position. I encourage everyone to support the candidates they feel are best qualified. Naturally, Mav can support whomever he wants and express that as he feels appropriate. --Michael Snow 22:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

After additional consideration I've decided to run. My main reasons for doing so are

The election will not be first past the post, so my running will not lesson the chances of a person I want to win from becoming a board member.
Finals and final projects are over, so I'm free to spend the time needed to run.
None of the leading candidates seemed particularly interested in financial matters.

But since this is approval voting, I still will be voting for you. :) What we really need is an expanded board (or at least the two seats now being held by non-active Wikimedians). --mav 20:55, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the courteous notice. You don't have to justify yourself to me, as I have no reason to be offended, but it's good to know why you're running, since I'm a voter too. --Michael Snow 21:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Our content license

Hi. I am glad to see someone with legal expertise would run for the election.

I am wondering if the Foundation would have a talk with FSF regarding GFDL, so that we can either get some custom-made version of GFDL successor license or something else that fits to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Is this potentially something you would care? Tomos 17:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I am definitely interested in future developments in the GFDL. The Wikimedia Foundation should certainly work with the Free Software Foundation to have input on future versions of the GFDL, since we are a major user of that license. If an updated version fits our needs, it should be possible to use that version. However, given the nature of copyleft licenses, it would be difficult to change to a different license. In any case, whatever license we use for any of our projects, we should make sure the license is not so customized that it becomes effectively impossible for others to use that license. To be copyleft, the license has to be as readily reusable as the content. --Michael Snow 21:53, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. :) And I did not mean to be tricky or anything when I talked about customization. it is true that customization might compromise the freedom of others to use wikimedia projects' materials. I was just concerned about those requirements on title of the document, principal authors, history, etc. of GFDL. It seems that it is hard to strictly comply with them in some cases. Regarding switching the license, I am one of those people who is hoping (and hopeful) that GFDL and CC-by-sa will become mutually compatible. I also recall some mailinglist discussion in which people talk about the possibility that FSF allows us to switch to a different, more suited license from GFDL. Tomos 03:52, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I was only trying to clarify, not criticize, and you raised important issues. I primarily wanted to reiterate that I believe our commitment to open content will guide our choice of which licenses to use, and what kinds of features those licenses should have. --Michael Snow 19:10, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Experience

Mike I am considering giving you my vote for Contributing Active Member Representative but the issue has arrisen on irc chat that you have not been using wikipedia long enough to warrant such a vote. Could you explain in detail why your lack of expierence (compared to other members) should be overlooked? GrazingshipIV 17:48, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

I will answer this in three ways:

Some of my qualifications and experience that relate to serving on the Board of Trustees are not specific to Wikipedia, so I have a lot more experience than just the time that I have been on Wikipedia.
I think I have demonstrated enough familiarity with our policies and processes to be a fully qualified candidate in that respect. What I lack is not experience - it's seniority. If seniority is an important consideration for people, they should vote accordingly, and I respect that.
I believe the more important question is not how long I have been here, but whether I am dedicated enough to the overall project. The elected trustees will serve for a term of one year. I am absolutely committed to still being active in the Wikimedia Foundation at the end of that year, and to representing community interests for the full duration of that year if elected.

I will elaborate some more on each of these points, since you asked for detail. However, I don't know what issues people want to know about, so anybody is welcome to ask me about this directly.

Point 1 - Because the Board of Trustees will face many questions involving legal issues, I think it would be very beneficial to have someone with legal expertise on the Board. As far as I know, Jimbo Wales, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis are not lawyers, and none of the other candidates so far are lawyers. I'm not suggesting that I should have final say on all legal questions, or even that the Foundation should be getting its legal advice from me. But I do think my experience and perspective about the law would be valuable to have on the Board.

Point 2 - I think it's fair to expect the elected representatives to be familiar with the community and our policies. The scope of our activity is so broad that nobody can be involved in everything at once, but they should know how to find things when needed. In that regard, I believe I am completely qualified. As an example, one of the projects I have been working on recently is Wikipedia:Topical index. This is a thorough index, organized by subject, of the pages in the Wikipedia namespace (sort of like Wikipedia:Utilities, but more complete). Although the Topical index may not be of practical use to everyone, I encourage people to take a glance at it and get a feel for the scope of this project (which is still ongoing).

In order to categorize pages, obviously I had to read them all first. As a result, I think I am quite familiar with our policies, policy discussions, and how the community works. Both through this project and out of personal interest, I have read a lot of "historical" discussion not only on Wikipedia, but also on Meta and the mailing lists. As a result, I have "experienced" many things that happened before I began participating personally. One of the great things about the wiki system is the preservation of history, so people can see how we got to where we are.

Point 3 - Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself whether you believe that I'm committed enough to this community. All I can add is that very experienced users, like Mav above, are willing to consider supporting me and don't seem to doubt my commitment. I don't believe I have done anything that should lead anybody to question whether I'm committed to the success of the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. --Michael Snow 21:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Trustee expenses / Bar membership

In the past, I have served on the board of a non-profit, and never requested reimbursement for my travel and lodging expenses. During the one year term from 2004 to 2005, if elected as trustee, would you submit travel, dining, and hotel expenses to the Wikimedia Foundation for reimbursement? I feel this is an important point considering the current general ledger of the Foundation. Also, I would like to confirm that your Washington State Bar Association number is 31665. --"DICK" CHENEY 22:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Given your compensation from Halliburton, it's easy for you to say that you don't need to be reimbursed for your expenses. But to answer the question seriously, I would expect to abide by the same guidelines as the other trustees. I'm not going to categorically say that I won't submit expenses for reimbursement, but it's my understanding that this is not currently being done. For example, I don't believe the Foundation is paying for Jimbo Wales' upcoming trip to Europe. Since I don't expect the practice to change anytime soon, I don't anticipate that I would be requesting reimbursement of any travel-related expenses.

Also, while the bylaws do allow the trustees to receive expenses for attending meetings, I don't believe this will be necessary. The bylaws also allow for meetings to be held by telephone or even online chat, and unless all the trustees live in Florida, I expect this is how meetings will normally be held. In that case, no travel is required. Any other traveling I might do I plan to pay for myself, with the understanding that my ability to travel on behalf of the Foundation would be limited by my personal budget.

Finally, yes, my Washington State Bar Association number is 31665. --Michael Snow 01:07, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Have you been admitted to the bar of any other state? Just so you know, I will be contacting the Washington State Bar Association tomorrow. If everything smells kosher, I am inclined to enthusiastically support your request for trusteeship... Though you might not want to make it public that the Republican Party and American petroleum and petrochemical industries are actively supporting you. --"DICK" CHENEY 02:03, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm not a member of the bar in any other state. And if I really had that kind of political backing, I would prefer they just donate directly to the Foundation. With the clear understanding, of course, that the Foundation will not accept any limitations on how the funds are to be used, and that the money most definitely will not be used to promote a particular point of view. --Michael Snow 06:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Languages other than English

Bonjour Michael.

Tu indiques parler également français et allemand. Autant que je puisse le dire, je ne t'ai jamais vu contribuer sur la wikipedia francophone. As tu déjà contribué à la germanophone ? As tu parfois ressenti le besoin de venir rendre visite aux autres wikis, pour voir comment cela se passe au dela des liens interwikis ? Comment comptes tu représenter les participants non anglophones ? ant

(Anthere notes that although I speak French and German, she hasn't seen me contribute to the French Wikipedia, and asks if I have contributed to the German Wikipedia. She also asks if I have felt the need to visit other wikis, and how I propose to represent non-English-speaking participants.)

Although I speak French and German, I haven't yet contributed to the Wikipedias in those languages. One reason is that I dislike having to log in separately to each project, and I think we really need to get the proposed universal login system done. Also, many of my contributions are probably better made on the English Wikipedia, for a variety of reasons. For example, I do a fair amount of spelling and grammar correction, tasks that I feel are best done by native speakers of the language, so I wouldn't tackle those in French or German. Also, while I've worked extensively in the Wikipedia namespace in English, I would hesitate to do that very much in French or German. Since I'm not intimately familiar with those communities, I might inadvertently assume that some English Wikipedia policy applies when in fact it doesn't, or even have people think I'm trying to unilaterally impose English Wikipedia policies on our other projects. I respect the independence of each of our projects and their freedom to develop certain policies according to individual needs.

To represent non-English-speakers in the Foundation, in one sense it would be ideal to have representatives from every language. Unfortunately, in choosing a Board of Trustees this is impractical and would create a massive, unwieldy Board. However, this does not prevent different language Wikipedias and other projects from choosing someone to represent their interests to the Foundation. These could essentially be non-voting delegates to the Foundation, who would communicate on behalf of a particular segment of the community. The elected representatives on the Board would then need to pay particular attention to what these delegates have to tell them. Wikipedia Embassy is a good start in this regard, although I believe most of the ambassadors are volunteers rather than being selected somehow by the other users in that language. But volunteering is the first step, as long as the ambassadors/delegates keep in mind that they need to represent their community's interests, not just their personal opinions.

About visiting other wikis, I'm not sure if Anthere is merely asking whether I've visited other wiki projects that are part of the Wikimedia Foundation, or whether she also means other wikis generally. The answer is that I have explored both to some extent. The other Wikimedia projects are fascinating to watch develop, especially if I can make out anything at all of the language (and even if I can't, I can get a vague idea of its progress based on how far it's gotten in translating the residual English text). I really enjoyed reviewing Erik Zachte's gallery of Wikipedia main pages in different languages. As for wikis in general, I have spent some time exploring to see what other wikis are about, and how wiki communities work in general. However, there I only observe and don't take the time to contribute, as the focus of my participation is here. --Michael Snow 05:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Favourite contributions

Just out of curiosity, and i am asking this to everyone who is standing, i would like to post a question. Could you point me to two or three of your favourite contributions in Wikipedia? Not the whole bunch of them, which I am sure you all have in powers of 10, but that special article you wrote, or made substancial changes to, and makes you happy. Just to see what you've been up to :) Cheers and all the best to you all, MvHG 15:14, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Two that are special enough for me that they come to mind quickly are Aashurah, an Islamic holy day, and the movie Fantasia 2000. Not that there's anything extraordinary about my contributions, other than the fact that I started both articles (my actual contribution to Aashurah was basically a stub). But I'll try to explain what makes them memorable to me.

I actually wrote the Aashurah article to illustrate a point I was making about the possibility of including items in the Selected anniversaries section of the Main Page in a format other than Gregorian calendar dates. This was about a week in advance of the actual day. I also thought the occasion would be appropriate to mention because it would be a major event in Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. As it turned out, events on that day were significant enough that Aashurah landed on the In the news section instead. This also prompted a quick expansion of my meager start to the article. While I'm not clairvoyant enough to have anticipated how newsworthy the day would be, it was nice to see a little piece of my work get picked up by the community, caught up in events, and carried forward into something more substantial.

Fantasia 2000 is simply an article I had planned to write for a while and finally did it. The two Fantasia movies mean a lot to me as a musician, and in contributing to the Fantasia article, I noticed that an article needed to be written about the sequel. Eventually, I got around to actually writing the new article.

So anyway, these are two articles that make me happy, and that I enjoy seeing in our encyclopedia. I hope this small glimpse into my contributions manages to answer your question. --Michael Snow 23:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Its nice to see all the different kinds of answers. Happy election! MvHG 10:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Voting system for this election

Hi. Due to the concerns of a number of people, we are considering adopting a new system to replace First Past the Post. What is your preference? Please respond to WikiElections AT aol DOT com. This is not an assurance that the system will be changed, but rather an attempt to gauge the will of the electorate. Danny 04:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Since the email address provided is only available to the election inspectors, I have copied the text of my response here, if anyone is interested.

I appreciate the effort to consult with the candidates, but after considering the matter, I am not going to express any preference. Since the outcome of the vote will affect me personally, my preferences could be seen as a strategic recommendation designed to increase my chances of winning, rather than an honest opinion about the merits of different voting systems.

Instead, I will trust the process to run its course. I have confidence that the election inspectors can implement an appropriate system, in consultation with the community. Ultimately, I assume that some kind of approval for the process from Jimbo Wales and the existing trustees is also called for, since the bylaws state "The Board of Trustees shall determine the dates, rules and regulation of the voting procedures".

Regardless of what voting system is used, I am committed to running for Contributing Active Member Representative. --Michael Snow 04:37, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

License compatibility issues

As you're probably aware, one of the issues the project has is the wide variation in what can and can't be used under copyright law in different jurisdictions and the differing definitions of free used by contributors to the project. How will you seek to resolve the inevitable tension between those who want a completely free to use public domain Wikipedia, those who want to make full use of all works they are free to use under the copyright law of their jurisdiction, those who want a GFDL only encyclopedia, those who want a copyleft encyclopedia and those who want the best possible encyclopedia and accept all content which doesn't infringe copyright, even if some of it might be hard for all reusers, or a small number of reusers? The most compatible license is public domain, so does that mean that you prefer public domain content over other content? Would you want to strongly favor public domain content to maximise the freedom to reuse the work? How do you believe that increasing or decreasing the acceptability of licensed content will increase or decrease the participation in the project? How do you believe it will increase or decrease the chance of a competing project to fill any gaps in what we accept?

You mentioned considering the requirements of non-US jurisdictions. As you're probably aware, fair dealing is generally far less broad than fair use in the US, so non-US jurisdictions are likely to require far greater use of licensed content than a US work if they want to provide comprehensive coverage of things from the last century or so, with non-US uploaders possibly needing a license to contribute something a US person could contribute under fair use. How do you believe the desire to provide comprehensive coverage of recent non-US topics and the desire to have a GFDL-free work can be reconciled without harming the coverage of those non-US topics? How do you believe the presence of extensive fair use materials can be reconciled with the desire to have non-US version published in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the many other English language and non-English language jurisdictions where fair use materials are not acceptable? Should the projects be limited to what is acceptable under the copyright law of the most restrictive jurisdiction? Jamesday 07:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

You ask many questions involving complex issues, so my response will be somewhat lengthy. I appreciate the patience of those reading it.

The public domain (which is not a license, by the way - nobody owns it, so nobody can license it) is a wonderful resource for us. However, this is not a purely public domain project, and due to the nature of copyleft, I don't see how it can ever be. We can't unring the bell for all the contributions that have been made under the GFDL. I respect the opinions of people who believe that copyright should not exist on principle, but it's unrealistic to believe that copyright will be legally abolished anytime soon. If people want to try creating an encyclopedia that is entirely in the public domain, that's great, but that is not this project, and such an encyclopedia would be unable to use a lot of our content. Individuals are of course welcome to declare all their personal contributions in the public domain if they wish.

As for the objectives of freedom and quality, I believe one purpose of our project is to show that those two objectives can go together, consistent with the spirit of copyleft. I don't think we should favor any kind of content, other than the best content, as long as it's free for us and others to reuse. We want the best possible encyclopedia (speaking of the Wikipedias) in terms of overall quality, and accepting non-free content to make it "better" in one isolated spot would be hypocritical. Reusability is critical, because we purport to license our content for other people to reuse, and because in the wiki system we reuse it ourselves every time we modify it.

Behind the tension you identify is a definitional problem about what is "free", and this extends beyond the Wikimedia Foundation to the system of copyleft in general. This stems from the fact that copyleft licenses promote freedom, in the sense of preventing proprietary modification, by attaching requirements to the use of the content. Complying with these requirements is, hopefully, a smaller sacrifice of freedom, but it does reduce freedom. One problem is the difficulty of mixing two copyleft licenses, or transferring from one license to another, even though both have the same underlying philosophy. I think the real solution lies in improving the flexibility of copyleft as a principle. That would also allow us to be more flexible in accepting content. In this sense, increasing our acceptance of licensed content would reduce gaps and increase participation.

Moving on to the more specific question of fair use and fair dealing, I actually prefer the term "fair practice". This is the term used in Article 10 of the Berne Convention, which allows quotations compatible with fair practice, provided that the source and author are mentioned. I think relying on international law is the better choice, especially since the Berne Convention is so widely adopted, rather than US-based fair use or Commonwealth-oriented fair dealing. This is why I have repeatedly advocated requiring source information for such material.

However, the real problem here is that whatever term we use, the law typically decides these questions on a case-by-case basis. Since each case is different, this makes it difficult for us to establish simple policies with bright-line rules. If one jurisdiction tends to be less permissive than another, that complicates the matter even further. But educational use is one case that is often permitted, which we should rely on if possible. I think we can argue that all of our content is educational in nature (and will generally stay that way, even when used commercially or reused by others). I am also hopeful that eventually the laws of different countries will become more consistent and allow us to use what we need. We should push to expand the ability to use material from other sources, so that we're not limited to what's allowed by the most restrictive jurisdiction. This is one of the few areas where the Foundation can justify political activism, which is normally off-limits for nonprofit organizations.

In the meantime, our approach needs to take the medium into consideration. For our online content, I prefer a relatively lenient approach, erring on the side of including content that has a good argument for legitimacy. Here it is easy to remove something that we're not allowed to use, and the DMCA and OCILLA can help shield the Foundation from liability. Print versions being distributed in various countries are a different question, because we need to consider the law of the country of distribution, and because we cannot "unpublish" hard copies. But since print versions will have to be selective in their content anyway, we can take this issue into account when making the selections. --Michael Snow 00:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Compliance issues

Hi. May I ask your view on Wikipedia's current state of GFDL compliance? Do you see, for example, any systemic or severe problem infringing either outsiders' or wikipedians' rights? Tomos 00:46, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

The concerns I have seen raised most frequently with respect to our GFDL compliance relate to history and author attribution. There is also the issue of compliance when we copy material from other copyleft sources, which may or may not be GFDL. My overall view is that our current practices largely satisfy the terms of the GFDL and are within the spirit of copyleft. For every legitimate criticism I have seen of our practices, I think we can make a reasonable argument that we are acting properly. We could improve in a few areas - for example, when copying from other copyleft sources, we should at least manage the basic GFDL compliance we expect of outsiders who copy our content.

But rather than get hung up on the technicalities of copyleft licenses, I think we should also allow for the concept of substantial compliance. The GFDL will get into situations its authors didn't specifically plan for, where its terms may not be applicable or may create unanticipated obstacles. Thus, as I also said to Jamesday above, I believe a certain amount of flexibility needs to be accepted within copyleft. Naturally, we should still strive to comply with the exact terms of our license as much as possible. On some of these issues, we should also promote future updates to copyleft licenses that would make true compliance more practical, both for us and others. --Michael Snow 17:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. :-) I certainly share the feeling that GFDL's technical details are not helpful for our efficient use of the wikis. I remember Alex once said reasonable compliance could be enough in US court [1]. While that's a very good news, Japanese Wikipedia is aiming for the literal compliance because Japanese wikipedians do not assume that the concept of substantial compliance is valid in Japanese law/ court. Tomos 02:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The standard legal term is substantial compliance, but Alex was clearly talking about the same concept. We are drawing on US law for that, and I don't know the extent to which other countries have comparable legal principles. One reason for the emphasis on US law is that the GFDL is ultimately a US creation, written with US law in mind, and easiest to understand and apply using US legal concepts. This is a little different from copyright law, where each country has its own rules, and we reconcile these problems by using international standards like the Berne Convention. In interpreting the GFDL, there is at least some hope that a non-US court would consider US law, because that's what the license is based on. Keep in mind also that the Free Software Foundation considers the English version of its licenses to be definitive, and translations are only unofficial.

However, you are quite right that we should not ignore concerns about GFDL compliance based on non-US law. I am very interested to learn that the Japanese Wikipedians have some concerns in this regard. Is the Japanese Wikipedia doing anything particularly different from the English Wikipedia in aiming for literal compliance? I'm not suggesting that the Japanese Wikipedia can't have different policies (everyone always seems to cite the German Wikipedia's prohibition of fair use images), but I think it helps if the Foundation is aware of issues like this. Then people can understand why differences need to exist, and also come to the recognition that we're all really not that different. --Michael Snow 17:53, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer, and I am glad to know that you think the board should be aware of those issues. For example, we are supposed to preserve edit history (author, date, time, comments) in a subpage when we copy-and-paste japanese wikipedia materials (specified as ja. equivalent of Wikipedia:Copyright), and place a link to the subpage from the space between the page title and the main text. But maybe that's too much technical and a bit inappropriate for this page. English Wikipedia suggests that link back might be enough, as you know. It is on my to do list to better inform these legal discussions and arrangements at ja to the wikimedia community at large, as well as to ensure those terms are more or less coordinated among projects. I cannot help but wonder how much of these differences grow over time among different projects/ languages. The Board's attention might help at times. Again, I appreciate your interest. Tomos 06:18, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Dues

How much do you think dues should be? anthony

A short question, but there's a lot to consider in this issue, and I will respond in some detail.

At this point, I do not have a set amount in mind. The Board of Trustees will need to consider a number of issues in terms of setting dues and establishing the different membership classifications provided for in the bylaws. There is the question of how to set dues in multiple currencies, and also concerns about how to do this appropriately when exchange rates do not always reflect standards of living (for example, a euro may be little enough to many Europeans, but the equivalent amount of cash might be a week's or a month's wages in some poorer countries). But one thing I can say for certain is that any dues should be reasonable, and ideally dues would be low enough to be within the means of practically all of our contributors.

I also observed that one idea you promoted as a candidate is having dues set at zero. For the purposes of this election, of course, they are. Other people have also indicated that they don't see the point in differentiating between contributing active members and volunteer members, or in having a separate representative for each group. If the community feels strongly enough about these issues, the Board could change the provisions of the bylaws regarding dues and membership classifications. I'm not opposed to these ideas, just waiting to get a better sense of what we want to do as a community.

However, I also think the Foundation also needs to take into account a part of the community we often take for granted - our readers. The editing community will be represented on the Board, but we also should consider the needs of our readers, so perhaps we can allow readers to be represented as members of the Foundation by paying dues instead. One possibility I have thought about is rearranging membership classifications to allow people to qualify for membership either by contributing content or by paying dues. The two could be separate classes, and people could qualify as members in both. We know there are many people who read our content regularly, but choose not to edit for a variety of reasons. Allowing them to pay dues instead would be one possible way of allowing readers a voice in the Foundation. This might be a little similar to the classification of sustaining member in the bylaws, although that looks like it was designed with more substantial donors in mind.

Some additional points are worth considering. The Foundation will need sources of funding, and having annual dues for members may be useful in terms of defraying basic operating costs. However, I do not want dues to become simply a means of buying a right to vote. Accordingly, we could perhaps provide something of benefit to dues-paying members. With this in mind, I think we might use an approach like that of the National Geographic Society, which Jimbo Wales has repeatedly cited as an example of his vision for the type of organization the Foundation can become. That is, we can provide some special content to members in return for their dues. By this, I definitely do not mean turning our sites into subscription services. But we could put something together and offer it to members as a bonus, whether it takes the form of a printed magazine, an email newsletter, or something else. For cost reasons, a glossy magazine like National Geographic might not be practical right now, but it's not like we lack for potential content. (Incidentally, as a frame of reference for setting dues, an introductory subscription to National Geographic is available for $19 US.) --Michael Snow 06:08, 30 May 2004 (UTC)