Wikimedia Australia/Base

It seems to be that the co-operative and association structures are both the two types of corporate structures being investigated by Wikimedia Australia. Under these structures, the organisation needs a base of operations in a state/territory. Basically, which jurisdiction should Wikimedia Australia be incorporated under?

Please vote for your preferred location below. If you wish to put forward why that location should be chosen use the comments section.

ACT

For

13:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC) For the same reason they put the capital there (so neither Sydney nor Melbourne could claim one was favoured over the other), because it's geographically close to much of the east coast of Australia (including especially Sydney and Melbourne but also Brisbane and Adelaide, even if it isn't actually on the east coast), because it has a certain amount of reputation associated with it in terms of knowledge and being the seat of power and whatnot, and because I may well end up working there next year ;) Confusing Manifestation 13:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against

Comments

I'd say go for a federal/state office system. Incorporate in NSW or the ACT, and perhaps establish some branch office in VIC where there's a lot of people. It would be more fair on interstate contributors.

Having an ACT office could be useful if we get in to political lobbying. Ajdlinux 12:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NSW

For

Aye.The University base does it for me. The Unis are where we would find lots of members being the kind of people who would not only be technically minded but also interested in expanding knowledge. (Also, it's where I live so I could come to meetings...!) Witty lama
Aye. Witty lama says it well! Go NSW! Enochlau 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How much I care about the location of the organisation depends on structure of the organisation as described by the constitution of the organisation. If there is centralisation of power - it follows naturally that I'd be opposed to any base outside Sydney. -- Newhoggy 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For - but how much I care depends on the structure. Naturally if it were centralised I'd say NSW, mainly because I live there. Ajdlinux 12:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against

Comments

Advantages:The incorporation is cheaper than in Victoria, has a great university base.
Disadvantages:We would have to get a fundraising licence.

Actually most tates have similar requirements. Second, if you were to fundraise in NSW then you would need to obtain one in any case - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 21:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if these are valid considerations, but these are issues I thought of:

People coming in to visit will usually fly straight into Sydney. Popping down to Melbourne isn't going to be a problem, but it's less of a haul.
Office space is more expensive in Sydney (I think)

Enochlau 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean international and interstate visitors, like Angela last year? (I suppose I can fly into Sydney once a year, for the Annual General Meeting at least).

More for the international visitors. I think (?) there are flights directly to Melbourne from all state capitals so that's not a problem. enochlau (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely easier flying to Syndey than Melbourne. I often have to go via Sydney to get to Europe or the US when I'm leaving Melbourne. Angela

Yes, office space is a consideration. How much more expensive? Where are the prime locations? We did a lot of research about Melbourne office space. --Bronwyn Gannan 23:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Why do we need an office? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Sydney, w:North Ryde, New South Wales has quite a few technology companies there. w:Parramatta, New South Wales is shaping up to be an important centre in the west of Sydney. What kind of information did you guys dig up on Melbourne office space? What kind of office are we after? enochlau (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think discussing office space is very premature. It's unlikely to be needed until the chapter is much larger. Even the main Foundation didn't have an office for its first couple of years. Angela

NT

For

Against

Against - too remote for the majority of contributors. Ajdlinux 12:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

QLD

For

Against

Comments

SA

For

Mark Hurd 09:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against

Comments

I have an involvement in another incorporated body that, while almost always having a bigger presence in NSW and Victoria, is incorporated in SA, and was pleased to be so a couple of times. However, I don't have the details at hand, I have no idea about its helpfulness re tax-deductible donations, and IANAL. If you do want more information email me and I'll get it. Mark Hurd 09:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TAS

For

Against

Nay. Sorry, it's in the middle of nowhere, and I don't think any of us live there :P Enochlau 23:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Against - too remote for the majority of contributors. Ajdlinux 12:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment: Enoch, 17 Wikimedians do live in Tasmania, or have Tasmanian roots/connections. I grant that none of our committee have lived there, ever (please, please correct me if I'm wrong). But there is a really great Convention Centre that we could possibly use for a conference if it came to that. There are at least 2 people who contribute regularly who may or may not be interested. Those are PMA and Chuq. And it's very close to South America for travelling purposes. --Bronwyn Gannan 23:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

VIC

For

--Bronwyn Gannan 11:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC). There is a great base of Wikimedians here.[reply]
--bainer (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Plenty of locals, and the Melbourne meetup was very well patronised.[reply]
-- AmishThrasher 02:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Ewart 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Ryan 06:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brendanfox 03:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke Bduke 07:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Angela
brenneman 01:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sfacets 08:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberjunkie 06:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Melbourne meetups have been a great success, I can't think of any reason against it. Deon555 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against

Geographically too far if you live in QLD, NT, WA. I'm in regional NSW and it's already very expensive to travel to Sydney let alone Melbourne. However I would not be opposed to a 'branch office' in Melbourne, if Sydney got a branch as well. Ajdlinux 12:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

5 out of 10 of those who have put down their names so far to be "interested" are Victorian or based here. Sarah, Brianna, Andrew, myself and Bainer. --Bronwyn Gannan 12:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Also, there is a strong Open Source and computers community as far as Computerbank goes. The recent meetup was successful, showing that there was a groundswell of support. And there are 140-150 Wikimedians in Victoria as shown by the category section. --Bronwyn Gannan 12:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Tim lives here. --bainer (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we could touch Tim for a loan about developing the servers?? --Bronwyn Gannan 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

er... no. Angela 21:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How viable would it be to register in NSW, but have the main office in Melbourne? - AmishThrasher 02:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it could be done, but it would appear shonky. If the main office is to be in Melbourne then the organisation should be registered in Victoria - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 02:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I'm a little concerned about: due to the tyranny of distance, choosing between either NSW and Victoria (or any other state) could prove troublesome because it would effectively mean that Wikimedians in the other states will not be able to participate in the meetings that regularly. How viable would it be for us to have offices in all capital cities, but choose the base based on which state has the cheapest registration costs? So the base is more of a technical paperwork thing than a centralisation of administration, control or influence over Wikimedia Australia. enochlau (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, Enoch. I think, if possible, it would be ideal to have a central office in one state and regional offices in others. Otherwise we risk becoming a state chapter, rather than an Australian one. Sarah Ewart 11:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps having state chapters wouldn't be such a bad thing if there were enough people interested. There's no reason Wikimedia Australia couldn't split into Wikimedia Victoria and Wikimedia NSW etc at some later date. Angela 21:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite common for Australian organisations, movements, or political parties to have a 'state office' or 'state branch' for each state and territory, and a 'federal office' or 'national office' dealing with national issues. Could we aim, even if Wikimedia Australia is incorporated as a single legal entity, to set up a 'branch' in each state as a sub-organisation of Wikimedia Australia, while having Wikimedia Australia organise, co-ordinate and promote nationally? In which case, how plausible would it be to have a compromise situation where - for example - the main office is in Melbourne (where, as noted, office space is cheaper, yet still is a major commercial centre), but its annual conference or AGM is in Sydney, with committee meetings over the internet via IRC, and branch meetings (or meetings of affiliated groups, for instance 'Wikimedia Clubs' on Uni campuses) in each state? - AmishThrasher 12:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to meetings, see the discussion on Talk:Wikimedia Australia.

It's also typical for political parties to have their national office in Canberra. For us, it would make travel arrangements fair, but less optimal. 220.245.178.141 13:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about appearing shonky. Haven't any of you noticed how many companies have all their motor vehicles registered in Victoria even though they do all their business in other states? Incorporate in whichever state provides the best financial grounds for incorporation, and operate out of the state which provides the most manpower.

203.102.161.75 00:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were I more parochial, I might have advocated South Australia. However, the plain fact is that the critical mass necessary to get the organisation up and running is present in Victoria. As a matter of practicalities, basing in Melbourne does have advantages - it's central for the vast majority of regular Australian contributors (in Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney).--Cyberjunkie 06:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with CJ's points as well (coming from WA). There's no point locating oneself somewhere where the base doesn't exist. If reality was to radically change later then I'm sure these things could change with it. Orderinchaos78 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

WA

For

Against

Against - too remote for the majority of contributors. Ajdlinux 12:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Federation of state chapters

A federation of state chapters is a possible alternative to single Australian chapter. Under this option each state chapter would individually register as corporations within that state. There is no requirement for every state incorporate at the same time. Each state can incorporate when they are ready.

Membership

Where a state chapter does not exist, an individual should be able to join a chapter in another state.

Chapter autonomy

A federation gives each state chapter autonomy over its own affairs and avoids states having to deal with disagreements on things such as location and expenditure. Each state chapter would provide a Wikimedia presence for the state in a structure that is most accommodating to the local culture.