Okay, so here is the situation, as it seems to me:

• Incorporation as a legal entity would cost a huge chunk of money upfront and require ongoing annual fees to maintain that legal status.
• BUT, incorporation as a legal entity would allow for a "neutral party" to hold any monies or respond to any legal issues that affect the site. In essence, it adds a layer of protection for Staff/Admins in the event that Something Bad occurs.
• BUT, if we don't plan on the site ever selling any "official" merchandise or whatnot¹, then the monetary protections are distinctly more costly and more trouble than they're worth.
• Basically, if we couldn't fund any legal maintenance fees with income generated by the site itself, then this would be a massive net loss to SOMEONE on Staff. We also have to keep in mind the hosting & bandwidth fees that would be incurred if/when we finally transition to PF. If it comes down to choosing between paying for PF vs paying for incorporation fees, I choose PF.

What I'm getting from all this is that incorporation is going to be far more hassle and trouble than it's worth unless we A) are collecting some form of income for the wiki and B) feel that everyone with possible access to that income is trustworthy to handle it appropriately.

Is anyone else getting any different conclusions from this particular discussion? I'm not getting into how we would handle money or any of that right now, just the summary of incorporation viability.

Personally, based on spike's input and the discussion we've had so far, I now think that incorporation would be a bad idea at this time.

(Also, made tiny edit to those logs to correct a strikethrough format)

[21:21] * spikebrennan (ten.tsacmoc.ap.1dsh.63315B53-CRInys|tibbiM#ten.tsacmoc.ap.1dsh.63315B53-CRInys|tibbiM) has joined [SSSC]
[21:26] <spikebrennan> hey, thought i'd drop by
[21:29] <spikebrennan> it's late at night so if you have incorporation type questions, fire away
[21:29] <spikebrennan> until i decide i have to go to bed because it's a school night
[21:30] <@Aelanna> None of the relevant admins are about
[21:30] <@Aelanna> Though
[21:30] <spikebrennan> fair enough
[21:30] <@Aelanna> I would like to ask
[21:30] <@Aelanna> What's the going rate on incorporation fees right now?
[21:30] <spikebrennan> hope someone is logging this so i don't have to do it twice
[21:31] <@Aelanna> I'm basically just asking for my own benefit; I have no idea what the relevant admins are interested in or why.
[21:31] <@Aelanna> I also personally think that incorporation is a really, really stupid idea, but I'd like to know how much it'll set us back.
[21:31] <spikebrennan> incorporation fees: depends on the state. delaware is easy. probably $200 or $300 or so for the initial startup. but then there are annual fees (less than $100 or so per year) to keep the entity on the books after that.
[21:31] <spikebrennan> this is pretty much regardless of whether it's a for-profit or a non-profit or an llc.
[21:32] <spikebrennan> there is no such thing as a nonprofit llc.
[21:32] <@Aelanna> Why Delaware? And does it matter in particular what state we go with, as an online entity?
[21:33] <spikebrennan> delaware is kinda the default. their organization process is streamlined and fast, and you can do most of the steps online. and because they're the default, they have a well-developed corpus of law— that is to say, there's more certainty as to what the rules are.
[21:34] <spikebrennan> benefit of having a legal entity: the legal entity as such (as opposed to specific individual human beings) can own property.
[21:34] <spikebrennan> so if there were advertising revenue, for example, it would be theoretically possible for an incorporated "SCP-foundation-thing" to actually have a bank account in its own right.
[21:35] <spikebrennan> downsides: among other things, the caring and feeding of the damn thing become someone's responsibility. there are tax returns to be filed (even if there are no taxes actually do), and various other things
[21:35] <spikebrennan> that have to be done.
[21:36] <@Aelanna> It's a huge pain, which is why I recommended against. But not having one requires us to throw the keys to the kingdom at one or more admins
[21:36] <@Aelanna> Which, were we a normal online community, shouldn't be a problem but is.
[21:37] * @Aelanna shrugs
[21:37] <@Aelanna> My point is, I just didn't remember what all the costs involved were
[21:38] <spikebrennan> on the costs: minimum up front costs of a couple of hundred, say more than $100 but less than $500. and then, say, $100 or $200 every year after that, in perpetuity. this is even if you're a non-profit.
[21:39] <spikebrennan> and once more with feeling: the difference between "nonprofit" and "501(c)(3)" is that the latter is a subset of the former, if you follow me. A nonprofit is an incorporated entity that doesn't have shareholders,
[21:39] <spikebrennan> meaning that if it is dissolved, its assets must be given to charity or they escheat to the state, as opposed to being distributed to shareholders. This is true even if
[21:40] <@Aelanna> Right
[21:40] <spikebrennan> well, i'm ahead of myself. A 501(c)(3) is a special kind of nonprofit, which has applied for and received recognition as a charity from the IRS, with the effect that not only does it not pay income taxes (although it must file a return), contributions
[21:40] <spikebrennan> made by others to the 501(c)(3) are deductible by the contributor.
[21:41] <@MisterFlames> A bit more than I think we'd be looking for. I liked the idea of us being a Literary Society.
[21:41] <spikebrennan> applying for 501(c)(3) status is a gigantic pain in the ass, and it takes a long time, and it's not like people are lining up to make charitable contributions to the SCP Foundation anyway.
[21:41] <@Aelanna> Honestly, and off the record if you must, do you think it's worth our time? From everything I've read, we'd have to restructure the entire site and actually pass ourselves off as an educational website to qualify
[21:42] <@Aelanna> We couldn't just be a writing website, we'd have to orient ourselves towards teaching
[21:42] <@Aelanna> I was reading IRS case files on 501c3, it /sounds/ like a huge pain in the ass.
[21:42] <spikebrennan> 501(c)(3) is a waste of time, IMHO. No, it could still be a writing website (and wouldn't even have to be educational), but the paperwork required to maintain the 501(c)(3) status would be a major PITA.
[21:43] <@Aelanna> How would we pass ourselves off as a charity if we didn't qualify for educational or publishing?
[21:43] <spikebrennan> simply setting up as a nonprofit corporation (without going to the extra effort to attain 501(c)(3) status) is an option, but someone would have to take responsibility for it.
[21:44] <spikebrennan> "charity" isn't a legal term. you're either 501(c)(3) eligible or not.
[21:44] <@Aelanna> Right, but under what basis would we qualify?
[21:44] <spikebrennan> http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exempt-Purposes-Internal-Revenue-Code-Section-501(c)(3)
[21:45] <spikebrennan> The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.
[21:45] <&DrMann> So, literary, but probably not worth it.
[21:45] <@MisterFlames> The last two aren't something we'd prevent, but encourage.
[21:45] <spikebrennan> Okay, I lied, "charitable" has a legal meaning. but it's orthogonal to the point i was making, which is that we don't even have to be a charity to form a nonprofit. there are lots of non-charitable nonprofits.
[21:45] <spikebrennan> by way of example, a golf club. or a political party.
[21:45] <@Aelanna> And that, in my unqualified opinion, is even kinda shakey because from everything I read, their definition of "literary" is closer to "publisher".
[21:46] <@Aelanna> As in, you print and distribute books, pamphlets, or other physical literature.
[21:46] <@Aelanna> Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I don't see how running a website even remotely qualifies
[21:46] <spikebrennan> i was being cute when I mentioned "literary society". the real issue is, do we want to bother incorporating or not? if you incorporate as a nonprofit, you
[21:47] <&DrMann> I know that nonprofit ezines exist. But again, if it's not worthwhile, it doesn't really matter if we qualify.
[21:47] <spikebrennan> have to have answers to questions such as what is the governance structure? who is on the board, and how do decisions get made? is there a concept of "membership" status that is less than board membership but still carries some sort of rights?
[21:47] * @Aelanna shrugs
[21:47] <@Aelanna> That's not something I'm allowed to answer
[21:48] <spikebrennan> and these are reasons that coming up with some sort of coherent mission statemetn may make sense. i am generally not a fan of mission statements for actual operating corporations--often a big waste of time--but for an amorphous blob such as ourselves, it may be worth the effort
[21:49] <@Aelanna> Well, yeah… that's because most corporations' "mission statements" boil down to "make money, in whatever legal way possible"
[21:49] <&DrMann> Aelanna suggested we just have the money go to a sort of "company account" paypal, and just be transparent about how the money is spent.
[21:49] <&DrMann> Without any sort of incorporation.
[21:49] <@Aelanna> Eh.
[21:50] <@Aelanna> "suggested" may be the wrong sentiment.
[21:50] <@Aelanna> This is how TDZK did it.
[21:50] <@Aelanna> We had a mutual paypal business account
[21:50] <@Aelanna> But we were in a much more stable administrative situation
[21:50] <spikebrennan> nothing wrong with doing it that way. but as a practical matter, some people might not be comfortable with the concept of there being an account that a particular individual controls but without there being a legal duty not to take it for himself
[21:50] <@Aelanna> The site and the community literally could not and would not exist without the admins involved. We were tied to it. There was no reason anyone would distrust us.
[21:52] <@Aelanna> But yes, that's the biggest problem, spike
[21:52] <@Aelanna> And somehow I don't think we're in that position
[21:53] <spikebrennan> mann: the thing thta incorporation gets you is a legal distinction between "i control this paypal account; legally it's my money but trust me, I'll use it only for SCP Foundation purposes" and "i control this money but it's not legally mine and i have a legal duty that limits what i can do with it"

Also, a point that no one has brought up, if donation becomes that much of a problem, what is our stance towards advertisement? Are we going to go full Wikipedia sans total advertisement, or is there room for advertising footers at the bottom of articles? Personally, I can see the pros and cons of both, though I'd like to remain advertisement free.

Because we need an entity (even if that's just a particular group of people) which we can point to and say "This is who we've entrusted with the development of the site as well as any money that comes in".

Wouldn't this be "active site administration", or a specific subset of administration?

I'm just trying to be duly diligent and get all our options on the table.

Fair enough, yeah. Once more I'd like to repeat that I'm well aware I may be missing something.

I'd like to see an actual cost-benefit analysis to confirm, moose, but I don't doubt that you're right in this regard.

Well, I certainly have no objection to that. My source is my business class, so it's an expert opinion filtered through an utter layperson with a poor memory. I'm fairly certain I'm right, but have zero objection to verification.

Also, as a side note, one of my partners is getting involved in an arts organization with some parallels here, so she may be a source of suggestions in the future (though no guarantees :P).

edit: also, you're a saint for offering

Very short answer: among the sorts of organizations that can be qualified as a 501(c)(3) is a "literary society". We're more like that than we are a publishing firm.

…literary society. Interesting.

Based on input from Aelanna and Troy, I suspect that our current best bet is to use Paypal as our money host w/ clearly dilineated rules and public records on how the money is used. I also feel like we should have a specific number of designated individuals who will act as the Staff/community mouthpiece. I had initially suggested forming a non-profit or something along those lines because I thought that was the best was to incorporate, but given other options, I agree that incorporation would be a poor decision at this point.

I like the mission statement/goal that Quik has here.

Why is this a goal?

Because we need an entity (even if that's just a particular group of people) which we can point to and say "This is who we've entrusted with the development of the site as well as any money that comes in". This is both a practical issue and a trust issue for anyone willing to donate money to the cause. Right now the closest thing we have to this entity is "all of staff", and while that's sufficient for maintaining what we have now, it's not so good for migration and development (citation: the rest of 05). And, at risk of repeating myself, the current state of things is not tenable for the long-term (maybe not even the medium term).

But what differentiates this from what we would have anyway — teams of staff members to oversee this, and documents outlining how we should operate?

That's basically the second option I listed above. I'm just trying to be duly diligent and get all our options on the table.

(As a side note, I do know that an LLC is massively expensive, and I'm pretty certain it should be off the table for that reason alone.)

I'd like to see an actual cost-benefit analysis to confirm, moose, but I don't doubt that you're right in this regard.

Why is this a goal? It's possible I should understand this already, but I can only assume that my lack of understanding isn't unique.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be a goal, I'm asking why, specifically, for the slow-to-catch-up people in the room (including me).

But what differentiates this from what we would have anyway — teams of staff members to oversee this, and documents outlining how we should operate?

(As a side note, I do know that an LLC is massively expensive, and I'm pretty certain it should be off the table for that reason alone.)

"To create an entity that will be responsible for the growth, development, and stewardship of the fictional universe of the SCP Foundation, its website and officially-affiliated media, and its community."

We've gotten slightly closer to that goal, but we still have yet to decide what form that "entity" will take (besides not a corporation). But first, we have to figure out what our options are. I can only think of a couple off the top of my head:

• A Limited Liability Company (LLC)
• Some sort of informal arrangement with the paperwork explicitly defining who can do what and what's to be expected

I'm sure there are other options. So your assignment, should you choose to accept it: find out about any other options we may have for creating our steward entity, and list them here. Pros and cons of any option would be nice, but at this point aren't strictly necessary.

• We are not seeking incorporation at this time, due in part to the massive cost.
• If/when we need funds for something, we will use Aelanna's plan to keep things completely transparent.

Are there any other comments people would like to add?

I believe our wiki test site is still up, actually. Someone might want to look into that and see how much hosting we've got left (if any).

http://www.scp-foundation.com/

If we need to remove the picture, then so be it. We could replace it with an artist's rendition without a major upheaval. It might be disappointing, but oh well. Those are the breaks.

EDIT: Dreamhost is the hosting service I paid for when we were looking for hosting the new site. The idea was to test different wiki softwares to decide what we wanted to do. Project Foundation has supplanted that role since then.

I believe that's for legal protection

What sort of legal protection does a creative commons site need? We have our own task force to slap people who are breaking the CC license, and we've got another task force making sure we aren't in any copyright nooses with images. Where else do you see vulnerability that we could address?

Are there any issues anyone can see with this plan for donations?

I still do not know to this day how much money was raised in the last donation drive, nor how much of it was spent, where it was spent, or how much is left.

Mann is the person with that information. Mann, if you could post that, I'd appreciate it.

But do we have rough estimates about how much money it will actually cost?

The original estimates would have to be adjusted for changes in our traffic load, but would have been around $150-200 a month. Adjust that for padding in case we blow our bandwidth cap and that we would want to pay at least a year's worth of hosting up-front, and that puts us in the neighborhood of around $3000 for the first year of operation.

This is not considering minor incidental fees such as setup costs (which are usually waived when you do things like pay for a year in advance) or domain name registration, and — as moose mentioned — assuming volunteer labor for the actual technical expertise required to develop, deploy, and maintain the software.

It seems like incorporation is, at present, more trouble than it's worth. So I'm against that. I'd be more interested to hear (read?), either here or in chat, peoples' ideas about how to improve accountability so that if we do another fundraising whatsit, we have accountability, so that people feel comfortable donating.

Accountability starts with simple changes at both ends of the operation.

Firstly, you have to state precisely what you will or will not spend the money on, what the target goals are, and what will be done with any excess funds: "100% of donations will be put towards the hosting required for the website for its first year of operation, which is currently estimated at approximately US $2,400. Any additional money raised over this amount will be kept in reserve in case the website exceeds its bandwidth cap and incurs additional costs, or for incidental fees such as registration, setup fees, or other unexpected, operations-related costs. Money raised in this drive will not be used to pay for the services of any individual or staff member for any reason." The first one failed largely in part due to a complete lack of explanation as to what the money would be for; inquiries were met with responses of, "don't worry about it, we'll think of something".

Secondly, you must explain where the money will be kept, and who will have access to it at any time: "Community funds will be kept in a PayPal Business Account owned by [primary steward] with additional access and control by [secondary admin], [secondary admin], and [secondary admin]." None of this information was provided in the last drive either; only through digging in chat was it made clear that the funds would be going to Mann's personal PayPal account.

Lastly, strict track of all money must be kept: "Payment or withdrawal of these funds for any reason other than those directly stated above must be done only with prior approval from the community administration, and all payments and donations must be recorded and published in a publicly accessible location, as well as the current balance of funds. Donators may opt out of having their real or usernames displayed on the donations tracking page." Note that much of this can be done in an automated fashion, as evidenced by all the websites that have PayPal integration. I still do not know to this day how much money was raised in the last donation drive, nor how much of it was spent, where it was spent, or how much is left.

We need money for Project Foundation (which is what we need long-term to get off Wikidot and make any number of changes that the community has wanted). Specifically, to fund the cost of the servers for the website (assuming we use volunteer labor to actually build it)

Whenever moving comes up, I hear a lot about "we need money for servers for PF." Which is most certainly true. But do we have rough estimates about how much money it will actually cost? Are we talking fifty dollars per month? Hundreds? I honestly have no clue, and I'm not sure that it's super-duper important, but it would be nice to have an idea of what our expected annual expenses might be were we to move from Wikidot.

It seems like incorporation is, at present, more trouble than it's worth. So I'm against that. I'd be more interested to hear (read?), either here or in chat, peoples' ideas about how to improve accountability so that if we do another fundraising whatsit, we have accountability, so that people feel comfortable donating.

Also, supporting Quikngrvn's idea for a mission statement. Also also, seconding Quik's thanks to Troy. Thanks, Troy, that was cool.

Money? We need money for Project Foundation (which is what we need long-term to get off Wikidot and make any number of changes that the community has wanted). Specifically, to fund the cost of the servers for the website (assuming we use volunteer labor to actually build it), and to cover the costs of legal consultations. Likely other concerns as well, but others who know more should weigh in here.

Obviously, we would need money for incorporation as well, but we would need a huge pile of money to accomplish that on top of what we would already need to fund.

Do you think this might be a good idea as, say, a long term plan? Maybe something like "investigate and procure incorporation by 2016"?

Yes. However, I lack confidence that such a long-term plan will be followed through on, so I'm sort of in an "I'll take what I can get" state regarding conversation about this. My lack of confidence might be ameliorated by a long-term plan that I have some special reason to believe can or will be followed through on, but personally, despite quite a bit of thought, I do not have such a plan.

we need to address what we need incorporation or money for in the first place

That's an excellent point. So, what do people see as the reasons that we need this at all? I'd like to hear lots of opinions, please.

I do believe that we're going to need PF at some point, and the alternative is for the site to either eventually get disappeared off wikidot (with no free alternative that we're aware of) or die down to the point where it doesn't matter because death by stagnation has already occurred anyway.

I agree with the sentiment, but the question is really if this is the right time and environment to try to do something like this. Yes, eventually, we will need to do something, but we've got no idea how far off that is, and while I don't want to get caught with my pants down, I feel like we've not even come close to unbuckling them.

Do you think this might be a good idea as, say, a long term plan? Maybe something like "investigate and procure incorporation by 2016"?

We all agree that we need something, although incorporation might be a bit much. There has to be some manner of organization, however. The writing has been on the wall for while now; we can only tread water so much longer.

I'd like to address this actually. I'm not sure what "writing" is on the wall at this point. Yes, we want more members, and yes, we got an influx which we'll never get again from Containment Breach. But honestly, I'd rather spend some of my money on advertisement than on incorporating. What organization do you see us as needing? And is there a way to work that organization into the already existing structure of teams and the staff format? I want to understand your actual thoughts and concerns here rather than try to interpret the cliche.

As a note, I could be wrong, so I'll add this to my list of things to speak with the lawyer about if we decide to contact him again.

Now for something completely radical, something that's been almost completely absent through this whole process: a goal. As in, a statement that explains just exactly what staff are trying to achieve. Something we can point to when people ask why? So, here's my stab at it:

"To create an entity that will be responsible for the growth, development, and stewardship of the fictional universe of the SCP Foundation, its website and officially-affiliated media, and its community."

Does that sound about right? Again, don't over-complicate this (even if it does encompass intellectual property, technological assets, and thousands upon thousands of fans).

Plus I just don't think we're well-suited presently to handle becoming a business. I think these questions are important ones if Project Foundation is ever going to happen — in other words, I am concerned about the issue — but I don't think this is the solution.

But I will fully admit I don't know the solution to this problem. I do believe that we're going to need PF at some point, and the alternative is for the site to either eventually get disappeared off wikidot (with no free alternative that we're aware of) or die down to the point where it doesn't matter because death by stagnation has already occurred anyway. So if people thought this was a good idea, I wouldn't plant my flag against it…

…but so far, everyone here who I know actually has some professional knowledge of this, doesn't seem to like the idea either. That doesn't help me feel happier about the idea.

Basically we'd need to completely change how we think about staff, moderation, administration, and everything else, and we are so, so, so, so not even a little bit ready for that. Having the conversation about how we could incorporate in any way, at this point, is a waste of breath.

If your organization is established to operate a book store or engage in publishing activities of any nature (printing, publication, or distribution of your own material or that printed or published by others and distributed by you)

Now, this would be definitely something to talk to a lawyer about, but if we could successfully argue that our hosting and off-site linking of tales and articles written by our community is publication and distribution of materials, that might be something for us to look in to.

It would also require the admins to be way more prominent and active, and as Troy admits, probably would be a pretty crappy deal for them. I maintain that incorporation and/or non-profit status is a waste of time and a bad idea for us.

Aelanna is correct that, with very strict accounting procedures and limited access to funds, it is possible for multiple people to have access to the information and process things, but frankly, I'd rather have that done professionally, which — again — takes money to do.

So, my question is now this: would the site staff sincerely like to do this, or do they think it is currently too much? Keep in mind that I will be paying for the legal consulting fees out of my own pocket, so don't simply say 'Yes' because everyone else is. This is my money, so I take it quite seriously.

If you think incorporation is a bad idea, speak up. If you think it's a good idea, speak up. I want actual opinions, since currently, it seems to just be five or six people concerned about the issue.

Side Note: I agree that for the junior staffers currently working with the site, a lot of them have been left to their own devices. This is partially my fault, as I intended to shepherd the system a bit more intensely, and was forced by real life to spend a lot of time not-doing-that. I see that my summer is going to be busy. That's fine.

We now have someone associated with a legit media company who (if I'm interpreting it right) is possibly going to pay us to use the work of the wiki.

I personally feel that it is dishonest to accept that money. If they want to turn around and donate profit to us to help support the site and community, then sure, but to actually be paid for the usage of the site — which is entirely free under Creative Commons — just rubs me the wrong way.

Yes, I realize that that comes down to an issue of semantics, but semantics and perception are actually really important in how the community as a whole receives things like this. When you keep throwing things like "pay" around, people get leery. It's human nature.

Now, frankly, I think it would a terrible idea for that money to go to any specific person, precisely for the accountability reasons that you brought up.

Problematic as that is, it'll be a huge cost if you don't. There's ways of working around this, so long as people are interested in working it out.

I'm pretty sure that there aren't any official businesses or non-profits in the world that are run by a staff made up entirely of unpaid volunteers.

Yes, this is a hobby for most/all of us. Yes, we're acting in our roles as Staff on a purely voluntary basis. But if we start taking in money, we can't continue as we are now.

Mine was. Vivid Studios, LLC was established in our fifth year of operation to support and protect TDZK, and neither Jerle nor Squee nor I ever saw a single cent of the five-digit-plus donations go to our own pockets. We kept strict track on every dollar that went through the system and every last bit of that money went to covering operating costs such as business licensing, domain registration, hosting, and advertisting. You'll have to excuse me for not seeing where you're coming from when this has already been done before.

We now have someone associated with a legit media company who (if I'm interpreting it right) is possibly going to pay us to use the work of the wiki. Up until now, any profits anyone has made from the wiki materials has been by 3rd parties not officially affiliated with us. Now, frankly, I think it would a terrible idea for that money to go to any specific person, precisely for the accountability reasons that you brought up. But if we don't funnel it to a specific person, we'd HAVE to have a front¹ of some sort to act as the receiver. And I brought up the matter of payment, not because I want to get paid for this, but because I think we'd be required to do so if we incorporate. I'm pretty sure that there aren't any official businesses or non-profits in the world that are run by a staff made up entirely of unpaid volunteers. I fully agree that any monies that we take in should primarily go towards site maintenance/upkeep, however.

As for us not needing a large staff for the technical side of things if/when we get our own site architecture, I'll take you word for it since I'm by no means a technical person. But even if we would only need a single site maintainer, we would still need someone to handle the forward-facing and off-site side of things. If we lump those 2 positions together, then yes, that sounds like it's approaching the time load of at least a part time job, which should be compensated to one degree or another.

Yes, this is a hobby for most/all of us. Yes, we're acting in our roles as Staff on a purely voluntary basis. But if we start taking in money, we can't continue as we are now.

I'd also like to note that we can't really incorporate or do anything along those lines until the image credit-a-thon is done.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean we can't plan for what happens after that. Also, for the record, I am also completely against incorporation. Incorporation is only useful if we try to get Non-Profit status, which is a shaky proposition at best and will be a significant chunk of money that we will have to spend up front.

I really wish people would stop equating "treat the community as a business" as "turn ourselves into a business or corporation". It's not what I'm getting at, and it does create more problems than it solves.

Also, I am far from a lawyer and understanding any legal things whatsoever, but what exactly would we define as "commercial" or not in this case in a way that wouldn't violate CC?

By way of clarification, the terms of our particular Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA) explicitly allow any and all commercial activity. There is nothing legal in the way of us making merchandise and selling it, it's purely the response from prominent community members who have threatened all sorts of retaliation if the administration tried to make money off the site.

To reiterate what I wrote in my post upstream, however, I think the biggest reason why is because there was no accountability and no plan for the use of that money. For all we knew, it was going straight into the admins' pockets and no one would know the wiser. I think that a significant number of those individuals could be persuade if we actually had a plan for where that money was going.

Who, exactly, is proposed to keep up with this and as a result get pay from working for the site?

Also, to reiterate, paying people for working on the site is simply absurd. Any money raised should be put directly towards actual site improvement and maintenance, such as the resources we would be using if we moved off of Wikidot. The mere idea that we're debating who the money would go to is off-putting; it suggests that we're completely off-base and still not really understanding why this was an issue in the first place.

Another issue I'd like to bring up by way of tangent is that the idea that we'd need to balloon the staff to keep up is similarly absurd. When system administrators and developers for a standalone web application see an inefficiency, they develop tools to streamline the process. We have, for the last five years, been struggling with the limited tools that Wikidot gives us. By moving off of Wikidot to a better platform, we can engineer that system to not require so much babysitting.

I've been Junior Staff for something like three, maybe four months now and I honestly feel like I'm kind of left to my own devices. I'm fine with that; it's the way the site operates right now. I'll find stuff to do.

But if we want to, for lack of a better word, professionalize, I think we need to learn to run this thing as if it's an actual organization before we even think of actually creating one. That means someone telling me what to do as opposed to me suggesting stuff I could do. It means setting goals, thinking about strategy, public relations and yes, also about money.

On the other hand, being somewhat qualified to help run a writing community does not at all seem to mean that the same people would be just as qualified to take charge of something like this. You would not really be able to tell how proficient someone would be at this if you just looked at their forum posts, would you? Plus, you then turn a free, completely open writing site that basically everyone just does for fun into something else.

Also, I am far from a lawyer and understanding any legal things whatsoever, but what exactly would we define as "commercial" or not in this case in a way that wouldn't violate CC?¹

My vote on this right now is that I really, really want to move off of Wikidot when PF/whatever alternative thing is finished, but I don't want to see the site become a business.