Talk:Membership

Age limit

Copy of posting to the list:

Thanks for putting up these draft rules on meta, Mike - I think they're a great basis to start work on and are good for drawing out the key issues we need to discuss.

I wanted to suggest a few changes on different topics and though it might be useful to fork off into different threads to cover the different areas.

First - age.

The draft rules say:

> Guarantor Membership is open to all ... that are over the age of 16 > Details required on the Application Form ... Date of Birth (required) ... If under 18, then signature of parent or guardian (required if under 18)

I posted a message on this list about some previous research I had done into under 18 members. (here) In essence it says that if a person under 18 became a guarantor member and the company went under it would be unable to claim the £1 from that person as the contract would be "voidable" - hence why a counter-signature is needed.

I would like to propose three changes, the first similar to Tom Dalton's comment:

First, remove the limit of 16. I think if someone under 16 wants to join I'm not sure why we should prevent them and I don't see the advantage in restricting membership like this.

Second, rather than requiring the counter-signature of a parent, I suggest we just require a counter-signature of someone over 18. I don't think it needs to be a parent - it's only £1 and as long as someone is happy to cough up that should be fine.

Finally, if the first change is adopted, I don't see the need to ask for a date of birth. Of course this is needed for directors but otherwise I think it is unnecessary. It would also be better from a child protection point of view meaning that someone who gained access to the membership lists wouldn't be able to immediately identify minors. It would also help guard against ID fraud given that they often need dates of birth. AndrewRT 23:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I was under the impression that this was a legal requirement for a guarantor member. If not, then I have no objections to removing the age requirement. I would disagree with the second, though - the signature of a parent or guarantor is the standard way of making sure that the child has the permission and support of their legal guardian. If someone else signs it, then I think we're in muddy water.

With respect to the date of birth, perhaps this could simply be replaced with a checkbox saying that the person is over the age of 18.

Mike Peel 00:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

UK residents

The draft currently restricts this to UK residents. I suggest this is removed, to allow, for instance, non-residents, former residents and UK citizens to be accepted at the discretion of the Board. AndrewRT 23:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this was a legal requirement; if that is not the case, then great. Perhaps I misunderstood before: is that only a requirement for directors? Mike Peel 00:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Membership fee

"annual fee, to be decided by the next Board at the first General Meeting"

The next Board wont exist until after the first AGM! At the very least, the initial Board should propose a fee to be ratified by the first AGM. Personally, I support charging a fee from the offset, although having the AGM set future fees. AndrewRT 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected memberships

The articles already specify:

2.3(a) The Directors may only refuse an application for membership if, acting reasonably and properly, they consider it to be in the best interests of the charity to refuse the application.

This strikes me as fairly broad but also means the Board will need a good reason to reject an applicant.

My reading of these draft rules are that they would further restrict the Board's discretion on these matters. Is this the intention? I certainly agree that the membership form should explicitly require an applicant to state that they support the charity's Object and wont bring it into disrepute but I'm not sure it's a good idea to restrict the Board like this.

It then goes on to say:

"Invalid reasons for rejecting membership include behaviour, activity or inactivity on the Wikipedia Foundation websites"

What if, say a repeat sock-puppet or vandal applied to join the charity? Would their membership help us achieve our Object or would it hinder us? What if they had disrupted, say, discussions on these meta pages or the email list? Both these examples could be legitimate reasons for refusing membership. Restricting the Board as proposed could end up causing real problems for a Board that wanted to bar a disruptive applicant but found they couldn't. AndrewRT 00:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)