Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Nonprofit. Click here to start a new topic.

Discussion pages are for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for discussions about the subject of the article.

General Comments and Discussion

I've posted a really rough draft of an organization roadmap. Vox and I are aware this needs a lot of work but it represents the general, high-level steps we need to go through to get where we want to go.

I've worked with several organizations in Dallas, Texas that have gone through this process and have a fair amount of experience with regard to setting up a non-profit incorporated under Texas law. We can set up in some other state as well - we're entirely open to suggestions at this point. One nice thing about Texas law is that it does not require the directors and officers of the corporation to be Texas residents or even US residents. We're required to have a "registered agent" who is a Texas resident, basically someone to be a point of contact. But directors, officers, advisers, can be of any nationalilty.
Steevithak 13:22, 25 February 2011 (PST)

Policy Issues

It seems to me there are several basic policy issues that need to be worked out as we go through the process of becoming a formal organization. I'm going to list them here as I come across them. If anyone else thinks of things, feel free to add them here.

  • How are admins selected?
  • How long do admins serve?
  • For what reasons are admins removed?
  • How are disputes between admins resolved?
  • How are disputes between editors resolved?
  • How are policy decision decided?

From what I've learned about the previous incarnation of Camerapedia, Brandon Stone acted as the ultimate authority on technical and administrative issues with regard to the web server but offered almost no input or control over content related decisions. One or two of the admins made most content related policy decisions on their own. That actually was a pretty optimal set up for a small site but it may be problematic as the site continues to grow and gain more editors.

I think their needs to be some clear mechanism for the community to offer input on major decisions and a clear mechanism for resolving disputes between admins. I think Vox and I feel similarly to Brandon in that we don't really want to exercise final control over the content of the site so much as make it possible for the other admins to do their stuff. So while we may use our current position to help get the infrastructure in place, it will probably be designed so that it's self-supporting going forward without needing us around to run things. Ideas and examples of other community projects that would help us figure out how to reach this goal are welcome!
Steevithak 09:19, 9 May 2011 (PDT)

Just to chime in here: as Steevithak mentions, I'm a lot more interested in contributing content to the wiki than in being an administrator or a conflict mediator. I'd like to see a structure that can resolve disputes democratically and definitively—perhaps with some weighting to reflect the amount of past involvement each contributor has had with the wiki.--Vox 10:49, 9 May 2011 (PDT)