RationalWiki talk:RationalMedia Foundation/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 September 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <4>

, (new)(back)

Liabilities

So, um, why does the Foundation's liabilities negate our assets? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Record keeping

I have marginal familiarity with budgets and other financial record keeping. Feedback on this is particularly welcome, though feedback on any aspect of the Foundation will always be appreciated and addressed seriously. tmtoulouse 02:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wish I could help. In five or so years when I finish my accounting degree, I would love to help, but as it is I don't even know the difference between assets and liabilities (see above). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

not in good standing

according to new mexico corporations records, rationalwiki foundation is a corporation not in good standing. is anyone concerned?--58.163.175.134 (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Especially since you've left no reference to check up on. Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 11:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking into this further, this "In good standing" and "Not in good standing" only has to do with tax filing records. Since we really didn't make a taxable income last year (much less than the $5000 threshold), this make sense. So, no, I'm even less concerned. Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the reference, I think. Blue (is useful) 17:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the situation, and will fix it. It has to do with a miscommunication. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Meeting

Rumour has it that there was a board meeting a week or so ago. Is that right? Peter ^mqzp 23:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Shhhh! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right. Sorry. Peter ^mqzp 02:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there was. What of it? ^talk 14:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Minutes?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 14:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are minutes. 14:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

...and are we going to see them at some point? I remember that in January there was no disagreement on the "we need more communication" point, but if anything you've gone backwards. Peter ^mqzp 19:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? Or are you assuming that the person responsible for preparing the minutes wasn't faced with a big job because we covered a lot of business and that she's not working on them as you voice your self entitled complaint? I just told you there are minutes. I'm sure Godot is deeply sorry. Apologize to Peter, Godot. I know a week is a long time to wait. 20:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's all I wanted to know (and a bit more). Peter ^mqzp 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

EC. So being sarcastically offensive to an editor who asks about the minutes is the new board policy? How dare minions ask questions!--Weirdstuff (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No. That's jumping to conclusions. Nice. Two non-board members participated in the last meeting. Nothing's secret. I have no idea who you are so I don't know if you're aware that minutes have historically been posted. Who was "sarcastically offensive"? "If anything" rules out other possibilities, one of which I pointed out, and assumes something other than diligence. That's not asking questions. It's insulting. Got any specific questions or do you want to have a meta-conversation? I've always been happy to answer what I can, and I've answered quite a lot when asked... 21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So you were not being sarcastic when you wrote: "I'm sure Godot is deeply sorry. Apologize to Peter, Godot. I know a week is a long time to wait."? Frankly, I don't believe you.--Weirdstuff (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

In most institutions, minutes are approved at the following meeting, and they are not official until then; this is intended to make sure the minutes reflect what was said. Technically, only motions and the results of voting (approved or not) need be reported (i.e., what was decided) as well, and at that level of detail, minutes are often boring. Minutes are not necessarily the best form of communcation for any organization. There wasn't much progress toward discussing new projects, if that's what you want to know, more just the status of the foundation as a nonprofit and how we treat our donors. ^talk 22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Under the current system if you're involved you know everything (hopefully), if you're in contact with the right people you know a fair bit, but if you are in neither position then you aren't even aware that there was something to know. Can I suggest that something be done about that in future? As it happens those last two things you mentioned are exactly what I want to know about, but now that I've been told that the minutes are indeed on their way I am perfectly prepared to wait. Peter ^mqzp 22:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Then ask. It's unlikely your specific questions will be answered if you don't. 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

right, that's it. I demand all those currently on the board be stood down to be replaced by a manatee in heat. Only then can we get the representation we deserve. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ace, your comment is offensive and discriminatory. There are in fact, a great number of sea mammals that could perform the role just as well as any manatee. To ensure that the southern hemisphere is appropriately represented, I'm adamant that a dugong is appointed. VOX^HUMANA 06:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What kind of hat though? I think maybe a homburg, but may be a little old-fashioned these days. Sophie^Wilder 22:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Minutes are generally not available till they've been signed off by a Board member, under normal protocol. Just to make sure everything makes sense. Anyhow, i sent a draft out to the Board, then lost my mother board on my puter and had to wait till today to read comments. So CHILL. :-) Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this very reasonable clarification. It's a shame that we had to go through the unnecessary drama above to get to it.--Weirdstuff (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

it just wouldn't be RationalWiki without the unnecessary drama! Sophie^Wilder 10:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

*cough* Peter ^mqzp 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Anybody there? Peter ^mqzp 07:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The board decided to ban anyone on the wiki whose username starts with "P" and ends in "L". Otherwise, read above. ^talk 16:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You implied that minutes should at least be available after the next meeting, but as I understand it you've had said meeting but there are no minutes—something about a computer crash? If they're not coming after all, are you still willing to take direct questions? Peter ^mqzp 05:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The minutes haven't been approved. (Actually, I never implied that they would be for sure. Although they really aren't secret per se, they just aren't that interesting.) RWF's name will be changed to the RationalMedia Foundation to express its broader scope than just the wiki (which is really the only decision we've made). We discussed whether NM is the best state for the foundation. We discussed a mission statement, the upcoming fundraiser, donor recognition and the website for the foundation (with continued discussion about how the wiki and the foundation are not synonymous), and we discussed some project ideas. The finances are stable Honestly, I don't understand your obsession with this; it's not a big deal. ^talk 13:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't see much wrong with that myself (except, perhaps, this "wiki and the foundation are not synonymous" issue), but the name change sounds like something you should have told people without prompting. Lack of communication is different to secrecy, but it is no less frustrating to someone with even the vaguest interest in the issues—raising the subject three times in as many months is hardly an obsession. Peter ^mqzp 23:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, I think I could speak for the board in saying that we welcome your input. That being said, we're not lackeys of the RW community, and if you continue using this arrogant tone, I just won't respond and encourage my peers to do the same. I don't care if you're frustrated or if you find everything wrong; good ideas take time and discussion. While nonprofits take into account their communities, they don't engage in the type of communication that you imply. ^talk 01:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Minutes again

So is the board no longer publishing these? Or have I missed something?--Weirdstuff (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We're working on a foundation website (more news on that soon), and it's likely that information about the board will be there. The topics haven't been much different than mentioned above. It's pretty rare for a nonprofit to blithely make their minutes available anyway. ^talk 21:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

But they were made feely available in the past. What, if anything, has changed?--Weirdstuff (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

They probably will be available. What's changed is that we meet more often (four times in a little over four months vs. five times in a little over two years) and we were trying to approved them properly at the next meeting; yes, that's the correct way to do it. We're also moving the foundation stuff off the wiki over time, since the foundation is more than just the wiki.

What about the old minutes do you find so compelling? Have you even read them? Anyway, there's nothing else to say about this topic. ^talk 12:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The trustees get this huge bug up their butt whenever someone asks to see the minutes. (WHY DO YOU WANT TO READ THEM. JUSTIFY YOUR REQUEST. WE'LL PUT THEM OUT WHEN WE DAMN WELL FEEL LIKE IT, SO STOP BEING RUDE AND ASKING QUESTIONS.) Has the foundation been bought out by a church or something? Because that's usually where I have to go to see this kind of secretive, shallow indignation. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 19:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It does seem to be a little bit like Conservapedia and the FBI. Just don't ask!--Weirdstuff (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I for one am confident that if the Board had anything to report, they would report it, and I think that it is inappropriate to question their actions or motives. The bus came by/and I got on. 21:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not speaking on behalf of the board, but as someone who's been at our meetings. If you have something substantial to contribute that's directly relevant to advancing the issues we're addressing, you'd be welcome to attend. Human has been to several to offer counsel. Stabby, as someone who offered real help doing something he's got experience and training in, is working with Trent on fundraising issues. We've got no secrets, just work to do.
• I took minutes for the last meeting. They'll be prepared for discussion and approval like the others. If I recall correctly, all prior minutes for this term were approved. Trent is working on a new splash page for the Foundation. A draft is up. Our goal is to move Foundation-related materials (minutes, organizational documents, required reporting, press materials, etc.) over there. Hold your horses.
• This board has spent a huge amount of time discussing issues fundamental to advancing the Foundation's mission. That includes things like amending the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation; considering tax consequences of being organized in one state or the other; taking care of government reporting obligations; lengthy marketing and branding discussions; lengthier discussions about fundraising issues, expressing how grateful we are for our donor's support with correspondence/gifts/etc, and schwag; brainstorming Foundation projects and strategies for reaching out to talented skeptics and prominent members of the larger community, and discussing new strategies for attracting new and different cohorts to inspire and participate in Foundation projects.
• We've met more frequently than any other board and accomplished a lot so far. A major priority is letting people whose support we're grateful for know what they're paying for when it comes time to ask for their help. We want them to know about our progress and share our positive energy, so any of you assuming that what this board does is some kind of Conservapedian secret or that we're operating in the shadows is unhelpful.
• Sterile asked for comments on Foundation projects. Go participate in that stillborn discussion if you've got anything helpful to share.

22:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Page move?

Is it officially RationalMedia Foundation in the paperwork as yet? I presume someone boardy will move this page when it is :-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge it's official. In honesty, it'll take a small project to move a lot of this to the proper titles. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Page update requested

With 2014 drawing to a close, now would be a good time to bring this page up to date with current information. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

How so? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"RMF! It still exists!" - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Who who have known!--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A new way to discredit RW

Follow the money, folks. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

990s

Nice one. I just mentioned them on the Twitter and Facebook too. Even if they just say "made <$50k", 990s are the sort of thing people expect a charity to have online these days - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Foundation contact information

@DuceMoosolini @FuzzyCatPotato @Spud @David Gerard @LeftyGreenMario @Tmtoulouse Having received no response from any of the contact addresses listed on the foundation's web page at rationalweb.org, I replaced the contact info with links to your individual RW email pages. The apparently inactive email addresses were:

• General inquiries: foundation@rationalmedia.org
• Media inquiries: media@rationalmedia.org
• Legal inquiries: legal@rationalmedia.org
• Fundraising inquiries: fundraising@rationalmedia.org

Please let me know if this works for you.

Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I discovered that this is not an optimal solution. The rationalwiki email pages only work if the client has an account on rationalwiki.org. The Board needs to have Tim (or someone) set up valid addresses or forwarders that we can use on the foundation's web page. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I can just email you my email address if that'll help. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 16:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

So can I. Spud (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cosmikdebris did you get any response? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The rationalmedia.org emails all bounce back whining about the domain name resolution being unresolvable...

DNS Error: 2414838 DNS type 'mx' lookup of rationalmedia.org responded with code SERVFAIL

I'm going to drop Tim a note and see if he has any visibility into that domain and its email forwarders. I would prefer that any email addresses posted on the foundation web site use forwarders and not use the members "real" address, if that is possible. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I got confirmation from Tim who confirms that the only active external email address in use is foundation@rationalwiki.org, which forwards to an email account owned by Trent. So, I updated the foundations's web site and the contact paragraph on the RationalWiki:Legal FAQ page with this email address. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)