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)

I don't know why we would require the "permission and support" of the parent, although I can see hwo this would be a good idea to get. I think a check box saying I'm under/over 18 would be a good solution. AndrewRT 01:11, 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)

Members can certainly be non-residents - otherwise microsoft (for instance) wouldn't be able to set up a subsidiary company in Britain. AndrewRT 01:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, great. I obviously got the requirements for directors confused with that for members. I've removed this restriction from the page. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:46, 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)

As per the discussion at the last board meeting, I'll be sending around a message to everyone that's shown an interest in WMUK2 to ask them what the membership fees should be. The consensus so far has been that we should charge a membership fee from the start, which should be for the period of 1 year. The next board can increase or decrease this as they want - if increase, then early members effectively get a discount, and if decrease then early members could be credited/partially refunded.

In a discussion on the mailing list, two suggestions were put forward: Geni suggested an amount of £10, while Thomas Dalton suggested £10 for consessions with the regular amount being £20. Andrew Turvey suggested that "we should charge a minimum fee of about GBP2 but also set a recommended fee of GBP15."

Please leave your thoughts on the fee below. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on the fee just yet, but will board members also be obliged to pay it? Scarian 20:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been discussed, but my belief is that we should unless members say otherwise. Mike Peel 20:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to be a member to be a board member, so yes. There's no reason the fee can't be waived for certain people, but I think there's a clear conflict of interest in the board making that decision, so it would need to be proposed as a motion at an general meeting. --Tango 20:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand my suggestion mentioned above (£10/£20), although I do see the benefit to a system like Andrew suggests. I would suggest a slightly higher minimum (say £5) since having a pay a significant sum ensures a certain level of commitment before you can be involved in the decision making. One option is to waive (or reduce) the fee for people that are involved in chapter activities since they contribute in that way rather than financially. It becomes a little difficult to organise, though, especially since people would generally join before getting involved. The board could consider requests for free or discounted membership on a case-by-case basis, though. I suggest a preliminary rate be set (fairly low - maybe £5/£10) and then have a vote on several options at the AGM (no preference voting or you're pretty much guaranteed to get the middle option!). If the AGM chooses a higher rate, existing members just end up getting a discount (no bad thing), trying to charge top-up fees wouldn't work. --Tango 20:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you stick to figures divisible by 12 and encourage monthly direct debits, e.g. minimum £12, suggested £24 for people in employment or whatever? --BozMo 22:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Direct debits would be great, but I don't think we're in a position to accept them yet. There are all kinds of hoops to jump through before you can do direct debits. Making the fee divisible by 12 so that we're ready once we are set up for direct debits might be a good idea, though. --Tango 22:24, 8 November 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)

Register of Members

I've done some investigation into the legal requirements for the Register of Members.

Secton 113 of the Companies Act 2006 requires us to keep a register showing, for each member:

• their name
• their address
• the date they started being a member
• the date they finished being a member
• the class of membership they hold (if more than one class exists)

Entries may be removed ten years after a person ceases to be a member. (20 years under the Companies Act 1985)

The register must be indexed if we have more than 50 members.

The register must be kept available for inspection at the Registered Office or at an alternative address registered with Companies House. The details used to be shown on the Annual Return filed with Companies House, but this now only shows the names of members and not the addresses.

Anyone - member or nonmember - may demand to inspect the Register if they give notice stating their own name, address and the purpose of the request. A nonmember may be charged a fee for complying. The charity must either comply with the request within five days or may apply to a court if they think the purpose is "not proper".

Whilst we may include more information in our records (e.g. a person's username) we don't have to include that in the disclosed register.

I have looked into what is valid as an "address" for a member. It is usual for this to be person's usual residential address. We will be covered by the Companies Act 1985 until 1 October 09 when the relevant sections of the 2006 Act come into place. Sections 1141-2 of the 2006 Act state:

1142 Requirement to give service address

Any obligation under the Companies Acts to give a person’s address is, unless otherwise expressly provided, to give a service address for that person.

1141 Service addresses

(1) In the Companies Acts a “service address”, in relation to a person, means an address at which documents may be effectively served on that person.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify conditions with which a service address must comply.

I'm going to look into whether we can use service addresses for members and get back. AndrewRT 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)