User:Adamw/Draft/Wikimedia Foundation membership controversy

MOVED TO: "Wikimedia_Foundation_membership_controversy"

--nothing left but notes--

The membership debate is probably worth noting in articles about the Wikimedia Foundation's history.

Was notice given?

According to the bylaws of at the time, notice by first-class post or email would have to be issued to all members in every class, at least ten days prior to the Board vote (November 19 or earlier). There is no obvious public evidence that this was attempted or accomplished.^{[citation needed]}

Curiously, the only Signpost mention of this major amendment to the Foundation's bylaws is after the fact, an opaque phrase appearing on December 4, 2006: "An agreement also reached on a revision of the bylaws," with no further details or links given. The newsletter did not announce ahead of time that the Board would vote on a change to the bylaws, nor did it expand upon on its implications in the December 11th or 18th issues.

One theory for why the amendment was so underreported is that there may have been mass protective concern and fear for the Foundation's fundraiser which began December 8, 2006. A precedent can be seen in similar circumstances surrounding the "Big English" fundraiser, in which multiple scandals were suppressed from November 2015 until just before the new year.^{[citation needed]}

Membership was never legal?

Elections were held as if there were formal membership, does this have any bearing? If the memberships were invalid, aren't the election results also invalid? If the Foundation gave the impression that their volunteer active membership arrangement was legal, was there a requirement of due diligence to complete registration?^{[citation needed]}

Current Florida law seems to allow for automatic registration, but it's still an open question whether volunteer active membership was a legal fact or not.

Florida law has requirements for membership rosters, that they contain a "name and address" for every member. There was also an accessibility requirement which caused concern for loss of anonymity, if members could look up each other's information. This was discussed publicly but not conclusively, one suggestion was that pseudonym and care of address such as a mailbox at the Foundation's offices might be acceptable.^{[citation needed]}</ref>

Legal change filed correctly?

If there has ever been a court case held with the Florida Attorney General on this subject, it could be possible that an exception was obtained.^{[citation needed]} A mailing list post by Brad Patrick, the Foundation's general counsel and interim executive director, casts doubt on whether the change in organizational structure was filed with the State of Florida.