prospectacle writes:
"An important choice remains for this site. What kind of organisation will we be, practically, legally and financially?
A for-profit, shareholder corporation seems out of the question, by general consensus (correct me if I'm wrong), but other questions remain. The basic choice is this:
Will we be like a charity, a co-op, or a recreational club?
This is a gross simplification, but gives some idea of the options involved. Feel free to offer alternatives. So what should we be, what is our purpose, really? And what kind of a structure is required to make sure we serve that purpose, and that money doesn't end up in the wrong pockets?
Bonus question: which jurisdiction should we set ourselves up in to fulfil our mission most effectively?"
(Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 12 2014, @11:18AM
Just to declarify, many charities do pay their admins and staff. Well even, judging by the suits many of them wear. When was the last time you saw Shaprton in anything off the rack?
How about as a [for|non]-profit with revenue beyond staff payment, overhead, and reinvestment being donated to the charit[y|ies] chosen by the community?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by strength_of_10_men on Wednesday March 12 2014, @01:16PM
(Score: 1) by bootsy on Wednesday March 12 2014, @06:54PM
I agree with the above. There are some more extreme examples of this, see the pay off ( never mind the annual wage ) that ex-head of Amnesty International got when they left. I find it obscene.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/N ational/article555707.ece [thesundaytimes.co.uk]
(it's a link to Murdoch owned site but you can use your favoured search engine to find another )
You can be very, very well paid working for a charity.