Board resolutions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Board resolutions

Frédéric Schütz
Looking at the latest changes on the CH wiki... is it on purpose that
the current resolutions look as formal as a UN Security Council
resolution ?  "RESOLVED... AND... FURTHER RESOLVED... so proposed on the
fifteenth of March 2006". I know it is borderline to hairsplitting, but
this makes the whole thing look very bureaucratic, especially given that
there no formal entity yet... Could we do with "friendlier" texts, please ?

Also, do we really need to protect the pages ? We all know that even if
changes are made after a resolution has been accepted, they can be
reverted. The reason I am asking this (in addition to the general
principle that we should only protect pages if needed) is that there are
several typos on the page Board/Resolutions/2006/02 that I was ready to
correct.

Last, but not least... this resolution says that "Wikimedia CH shall
have its seat in Zurich". Does that mean "until a President is elected",
or is there a change to the proposed bylaws ?

Frédéric
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Jürg Wolf
I agree with Frederic

I know that several actions must be done BEFORE the real foundation, but I still
do not see why we need a special post address BEFORE the foundation - and even
after the foundation, since we do not expect a bunch of mail. And as long there
is no founded association, we all (= all of this mailing list? At least all
persons, who are willing to help for this project) could be charged personally
for things you do now.

I am also not very happy with the naming and wording. "Resolution", the numbers
and the used words sound really strange, such as they are created by the UN or
some crooked lawyers. Why can't the articles be named like "Decision Technic" /
"Decision Postal Adress" and inside a simple list of decisions, that were
done...?

And at least - as far as I know, there is no consensus about the location of the
address (Zürich vs. Berne vs. Olten vs. Geneva vs. Hintertupfingen) - so why
this haste?

Just asking

Jürg Wolf


Zitat von Frederic Schutz <[hidden email]>:

> Looking at the latest changes on the CH wiki... is it on purpose that
> the current resolutions look as formal as a UN Security Council
> resolution ?  "RESOLVED... AND... FURTHER RESOLVED... so proposed on the
> fifteenth of March 2006". I know it is borderline to hairsplitting, but
> this makes the whole thing look very bureaucratic, especially given that
> there no formal entity yet... Could we do with "friendlier" texts, please ?
>
> Also, do we really need to protect the pages ? We all know that even if
> changes are made after a resolution has been accepted, they can be
> reverted. The reason I am asking this (in addition to the general
> principle that we should only protect pages if needed) is that there are
> several typos on the page Board/Resolutions/2006/02 that I was ready to
> correct.
>
> Last, but not least... this resolution says that "Wikimedia CH shall
> have its seat in Zurich". Does that mean "until a President is elected",
> or is there a change to the proposed bylaws ?
>
> Frédéric
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediach-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Manuel Schneider [Everything Open]
Hi together,

just some words why such "resolutions" (or name them how you'd like) are
necessary:

> I know that several actions must be done BEFORE the real foundation, but I
> still do not see why we need a special post address BEFORE the foundation -
> and even after the foundation, since we do not expect a bunch of mail. And
> as long there is no founded association, we all (= all of this mailing
> list? At least all persons, who are willing to help for this project) could
> be charged personally for things you do now.
The thing is, that there are legal actions that have to be done now in
preparation of the founding of Wikimedia CH and the Wikipedia Day, such as
registering / transfering domain names (wikipedia.ch, wikimedia.ch etc.),
contracts which have to been placed (webhosting, server and ressources) which
require a postal mail adress.

These stuff has also been discussed on this mailing list.

> And at least - as far as I know, there is no consensus about the location
> of the address (Zürich vs. Berne vs. Olten vs. Geneva vs. Hintertupfingen)
> - so why this haste?
Right, as we decided to get a "redirection adress" we could choose any adress
within switzerland - no matter where the receiver (= president) actually will
be situated.
So for that I would prefer Bern (as Bundesstadt) or Luzern (as central
metropolis).

Greets,


Manuel
--
---------------------------------------------------------
All-Things-Open Projektgruppe

[hidden email]
http://www.all-things-open.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM d-- s:- a? C++$ UL++++ P+> L+++>$ E- W+++$ N+ o-- K- w--$ O+ M+ V
PS+ PE- Y+ PGP+ t 5 X R UF++++ !tv b+> DI D+ G+ e> h r y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Frédéric Schütz
> Looking at the latest changes on the CH wiki... is it on purpose that
> the current resolutions look as formal as a UN Security Council
> resolution ?  "RESOLVED... AND... FURTHER RESOLVED... so proposed on the
> fifteenth of March 2006". I know it is borderline to hairsplitting, but
> this makes the whole thing look very bureaucratic, especially given that
> there no formal entity yet... Could we do with "friendlier" texts, please ?

For me it seems as a "ticketing tool" language :)

>
> Also, do we really need to protect the pages ? We all know that even if
> changes are made after a resolution has been accepted, they can be
> reverted. The reason I am asking this (in addition to the general
> principle that we should only protect pages if needed) is that there are
> several typos on the page Board/Resolutions/2006/02 that I was ready to
> correct.

I don't undestand. Do you mean that pages are blocked to no-sysop
members? It seems to have a sense because when a board (or preliminary
board) take a decision it's important to communicate this decision
(also with grammatical errors). If a no-board person makes a change
with unintentional misanderstandigs, the communication could be
different. What do you think if a person change your sandbox or
"correct" your discussion page changing the sense of your sentences?

>
> Last, but not least... this resolution says that "Wikimedia CH shall
> have its seat in Zurich". Does that mean "until a President is elected",
> or is there a change to the proposed bylaws ?
>

There was a discussion same months ago and the most part of swiss
wikipedians seemed to accept that the seat of foundation was in a town
more central for all swiss people (like Zurich). It could be that this
resolution is connected with this discussion.

Regards

Ilario
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Jürg Wolf
In reply to this post by Manuel Schneider [Everything Open]
So there are even other cities possible:
* Zurich - the economic capital of CH
* Berne - the political capital of CH of home affairs
* Geneva - the political capital of CH of foreign affairs
* Lucerne - the touristic capital of CH
* Jungfraujoch - another touristic capital (indian view)
* Olten - the capital of traffic
* Rütli - the historic capital
* ....

so how should we proceed?

Is it also foreseen to open a bank account? And if - in which place? And when?
In whose name? At which bank?

Jürg


Zitat von "Manuel Schneider [Everything Open]"
<[hidden email]>:

> Hi together,
>
> just some words why such "resolutions" (or name them how you'd like) are
> necessary:
>
> > I know that several actions must be done BEFORE the real foundation, but I
> > still do not see why we need a special post address BEFORE the foundation
> -
> > and even after the foundation, since we do not expect a bunch of mail. And
> > as long there is no founded association, we all (= all of this mailing
> > list? At least all persons, who are willing to help for this project)
> could
> > be charged personally for things you do now.
> The thing is, that there are legal actions that have to be done now in
> preparation of the founding of Wikimedia CH and the Wikipedia Day, such as
> registering / transfering domain names (wikipedia.ch, wikimedia.ch etc.),
> contracts which have to been placed (webhosting, server and ressources) which
> require a postal mail adress.
>
> These stuff has also been discussed on this mailing list.
>
> > And at least - as far as I know, there is no consensus about the location
> > of the address (Zürich vs. Berne vs. Olten vs. Geneva vs. Hintertupfingen)
> > - so why this haste?
> Right, as we decided to get a "redirection adress" we could choose any adress
> within switzerland - no matter where the receiver (= president) actually will
> be situated.
> So for that I would prefer Bern (as Bundesstadt) or Luzern (as central
> metropolis).
>
> Greets,
>
>
> Manuel
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> All-Things-Open Projektgruppe
> [hidden email]
> http://www.all-things-open.org/


_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Ilario Valdelli
Lugano - the "sunny" capital :)

On 3/15/06, Jürg Wolf <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So there are even other cities possible:
> * Zurich - the economic capital of CH
> * Berne - the political capital of CH of home affairs
> * Geneva - the political capital of CH of foreign affairs
> * Lucerne - the touristic capital of CH
> * Jungfraujoch - another touristic capital (indian view)
> * Olten - the capital of traffic
> * Rütli - the historic capital
> * ....
>
> so how should we proceed?
>
> Is it also foreseen to open a bank account? And if - in which place? And when?
> In whose name? At which bank?
>
> Jürg
>
>
> Zitat von "Manuel Schneider [Everything Open]"
> <[hidden email]>:
> > Hi together,
> >
> > just some words why such "resolutions" (or name them how you'd like) are
> > necessary:
> >
> > > I know that several actions must be done BEFORE the real foundation, but I
> > > still do not see why we need a special post address BEFORE the foundation
> > -
> > > and even after the foundation, since we do not expect a bunch of mail. And
> > > as long there is no founded association, we all (= all of this mailing
> > > list? At least all persons, who are willing to help for this project)
> > could
> > > be charged personally for things you do now.
> > The thing is, that there are legal actions that have to be done now in
> > preparation of the founding of Wikimedia CH and the Wikipedia Day, such as
> > registering / transfering domain names (wikipedia.ch, wikimedia.ch etc.),
> > contracts which have to been placed (webhosting, server and ressources) which
> > require a postal mail adress.
> >
> > These stuff has also been discussed on this mailing list.
> >
> > > And at least - as far as I know, there is no consensus about the location
> > > of the address (Zürich vs. Berne vs. Olten vs. Geneva vs. Hintertupfingen)
> > > - so why this haste?
> > Right, as we decided to get a "redirection adress" we could choose any adress
> > within switzerland - no matter where the receiver (= president) actually will
> > be situated.
> > So for that I would prefer Bern (as Bundesstadt) or Luzern (as central
> > metropolis).
> >
> > Greets,
> >
> >
> > Manuel
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > All-Things-Open Projektgruppe
> > [hidden email]
> > http://www.all-things-open.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediach-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Jürg Wolf
On 3/15/06, Jürg Wolf <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So there are even other cities possible:
> * Zurich - the economic capital of CH
> * Berne - the political capital of CH of home affairs
> * Geneva - the political capital of CH of foreign affairs
> * Lucerne - the touristic capital of CH
> * Jungfraujoch - another touristic capital (indian view)
> * Olten - the capital of traffic
> * Rütli - the historic capital
> * ....
>

What is the difference to have Berne or Zurich or Geneva (all these
are nice towns)? IHMO the seat of foundation should be connected to
have an easy financial management (low taxation and similar) and
Zurich seems to have these features.

> so how should we proceed?
>
> Is it also foreseen to open a bank account? And if - in which place? And when?
> In whose name? At which bank?

First it important to have a foundation, after to resolve these
problems. In any case the bank less expensive :P

Ilario
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Frédéric Schütz
In reply to this post by Manuel Schneider [Everything Open]
Manuel Schneider [Everything Open] wrote:

> The thing is, that there are legal actions that have to be done now in
> preparation of the founding of Wikimedia CH and the Wikipedia Day, such as
> registering / transfering domain names (wikipedia.ch, wikimedia.ch etc.),
> contracts which have to been placed (webhosting, server and ressources) which
> require a postal mail adress.

Note that before the association is officially created, there can be no
contract in its name, no legal action in its name, no nothing -- it does
not exist. Any action that is taken before that is done only in the name
of the person who does it. Which is probably why the "resolutions" are a
bit baffling.

We can have "minutes" indicating which decisions have been taken, sure,
no problem. Something along the lines of "After discussion on the
mailing-list, we have decided that the mail will go to here. Such and
such will take care of it as secretary until the formal creation of the
association", etc... Not something that sounds legal without being so.

As for the actual postal mail address, I must admit that I personaly do
not care at all about where "Wikimedia CH" mail goes to, it could be
Tolochenaz, Hasle Bei Burgdorf, S-Chanf, Ascona, or whatever...

Cheers,

Frédéric

_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Frédéric Schütz
In reply to this post by Jürg Wolf
Jürg Wolf wrote:

> Is it also foreseen to open a bank account? And if - in which place? And when?
> In whose name? At which bank?

When: not before the association is created. One needs a copy of the
   bylaws, and the minutes of the first general meeting to open an
   account (specifying who has access to the account).

Which bank: Postfinance looks like a good option to me, if only because
it is easy to give a postal account number to anyone for donations, such
as "12-345678-9", instead of having to say "Bank such and such, account
A-BCDEFGH-I". All the associations I know of use a Yellow account as
their main accounts.

In which place: does not make a difference, especially for postfinance
   which is all around Switzerland

Whose name: Wikimedia CH, with signature from 2 board members required
   to access the account.

Frédéric
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Frédéric Schütz
In reply to this post by Ilario Valdelli
Ilario Valdelli wrote:

> I don't undestand. Do you mean that pages are blocked to no-sysop
> members? It seems to have a sense because when a board (or preliminary
> board) take a decision it's important to communicate this decision
> (also with grammatical errors). If a no-board person makes a change
> with unintentional misanderstandigs, the communication could be
> different.

Of course, your argument makes perfect sense. But being an association
that promotes Wikipedia and other Wiki-based projects, I would like to
think that we can do without the permanent protections, only with a
banner saying "This is a resolution voted by the board, and should not
be modified anymore". This allows us to send outside a message such as:
"look, we really believe in this wiki thing, all our stuff is managed by
a Wiki, anyone can edit it, and it works. Of course, we are watching the
pages, and if you do something silly, we'll reverse your edits, block
you and/or protect the page".

 > What do you think if a person change your sandbox or
> "correct" your discussion page changing the sense of your sentences?

Well... not much really. My discussion page is not protected; if it
happens, I reverse the change and warn the person on its talk page. What
do you do ?

>>Last, but not least... this resolution says that "Wikimedia CH shall
>>have its seat in Zurich". Does that mean "until a President is elected",
>>or is there a change to the proposed bylaws ?
>
> There was a discussion same months ago and the most part of swiss
> wikipedians seemed to accept that the seat of foundation was in a town
> more central for all swiss people (like Zurich). It could be that this
> resolution is connected with this discussion.

My questions arises from the fact that I started to look at the bylaws
in order to translate them in French, and §1.2 says that the seat of the
association (note that a Foundation is something very different from the
legal point of view) is where the President live, so I was wondering how
it fits with this resolution that says Zürich ?

Best,

Frédéric
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Frédéric Schütz

>Which bank: Postfinance looks like a good option to me, if only because
>it is easy to give a postal account number to anyone for donations, such
>as "12-345678-9", instead of having to say "Bank such and such, account
>A-BCDEFGH-I". All the associations I know of use a Yellow account as
>their main accounts.
>
>  
>
It seems good, it is easy to have paying-in slips and the yellownet
(online) it's very easy to use.

Ilario
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Frédéric Schütz

>Of course, your argument makes perfect sense. But being an association
>that promotes Wikipedia and other Wiki-based projects, I would like to
>think that we can do without the permanent protections, only with a
>banner saying "This is a resolution voted by the board, and should not
>be modified anymore". This allows us to send outside a message such as:
>"look, we really believe in this wiki thing, all our stuff is managed by
>a Wiki, anyone can edit it, and it works. Of course, we are watching the
>pages, and if you do something silly, we'll reverse your edits, block
>you and/or protect the page".
>
>  
>
The funcionalities are different. Same pages are collaboratives pages,
same pages are service pages.

In Wikipedia we have a lot of pages that are collaborative pages, but
also a lot of pages that are service pages and are not modifiable by
no-sysop users (i.e. Home Page). If we think that the pages that you
analyze are service pages, the block could be correct, if we think that
these are collaborative pages it isn't.

I am with your opinion, if persons accept the possibility of rollback
without long discussions :)

>My questions arises from the fact that I started to look at the bylaws
>in order to translate them in French, and §1.2 says that the seat of the
>association (note that a Foundation is something very different from the
>legal point of view) is where the President live, so I was wondering how
>it fits with this resolution that says Zürich ?
>  
>
I think that this point is "salomonic decision" to avoid discussions
(happily Swiss has not a big and predominant town). Also italian
wikimedia has taken the same decision. In any case the financial seat
could be different.

Regards

Ilario
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Michael Bimmler
In reply to this post by Frédéric Schütz
Now there seems to be a big discussion going on here and I would like
to clarify a few points as the resolutions come from me and Nando:
1. Why we need resolutions:
a) We want to create as soon as a "wikimedia.ch", which is intended
for the public. We want to stop using ch.wikimedia.org, because (and
this is a position of Wikimedia Germany) it is no good, when content
and things from chapters are on foundation servers, because this makes
legally the foundation responsible for what we, as Wikimedia CH, are
doing, and this should be avoided, cf. Tron-case. So, we need to have
wikimedia.ch for public, members.wikimedia.ch for members and
board.wikimedia.ch for internal board communication (instead of a
extra board-ml) when WIkimedia CH is founded. Actually, we want the
wikimedia.ch-homepage already as soon as possible, because if we're in
discussions with sponsors, donors, patrons etc. prior to Wikipedia
Day, we must be able to say, "look, there is at www.wikimedia.ch a
nice description of our verein". And, we cannot wait until Wikimedia
CH is somewhen founded and then have a homepage in 1-2 days... So
Manuel will need to register the domain etc. and for this a resolution
is needed (see below for more reasoning about resolutions in general).
For registering the domain, he also needs an adress, which leads me to
point b
b) We need an adress. I think nobody will say, that we can handle
everything per email. And, we don't want, that each time somebody is
talking to an "outsider" he has to use his own adress. Because then
some people have as contact Nando, others Manuel, other Jürg, others
Ilario, others me and so on. This gets complicated so. Okay, and
that's why we need a general adress. As has been outlined and
discussed on this mailing list, the "Feste Vereinsadresse" provided by
the post, seems to be the best thing. Well, and why should we wait to
open this adress, as we actually need it already now, see point a...
I talked via OTRS to the post (I even sent part of their answer to the
ml) and, after further correspondence, they told me, that the person
who opens the adress has to bring with him a protocol or a board
resolutions enabling him to do so. As we don't have a meeting soon,
and we can't bring them a print of a long mailing-list-thread, Nando
and I have made a board resolution.
2. Why the board makes this resolutions.
Actually, I didn't remember, that a preliminary board (this is my
personal translation of "kommisarischer Vorstand") exists, however
Manuel told me, that Nando and I have been
appointed/nominated/whatever to be this until the foundation. Now, you
can't say, that we have been to active until now. However, we have
seen, as broadly outlined in point 1, that sometimes, formal
resolutions are needed, particularly when dealing with official or
semi-official things. Now you have hopefully remarked, that I always
posted the resolutions and the amendmends to them to this very
mailinglist and I invited people to make comments here. I did not
really expect any opposition to the first resolution but if anything
had been mentioned I would have been very happy to discuss this here
and to change the resolution if it's the opinion of the majority. But
nobody said anything and I assumed, that people could live with the
first resolution. As far as the second resolutions is concerned, I
have made a draft and asked Nando what he thinks about it. Now at this
point I would have asked at this mailinglist, if people are okay with
it, as important things as the seat are concerned but obviously
somebody has seen Nando's approval before me and this is also good so,
because it shows that the wiki forces transparency.
3. About the formal language.
I have discussed this matter some days ago in IRC with Jean-Baptiste
Soufron, the legal coordinator/advisor of the foundation and he told
me, that some formal requirements need to be there (e.g. when mandates
are terminated etc.) because of the legal validity. The exact
terminology like "resolved" etc. is mostly a "product of the moment"
and I have no problem with changing this, as long as the proposed
alternatives are legally ok.
4. About page protection
We have a wiki. A wiki means everybody can edit, at Wikimedia CH only
people logged in.
But, there are 2 reasons which are imho pro blocking some pages:
a)www.wikimedia.ch, which is redirecting to our wiki, is mentioned at
the bottom of the Weltwoche article about "us" and therefore people of
the public might surf to our website. We don't really want them to see
some vandalism at the first page, the main page, do we? So therefore I
blocked the main page.
b) the german bylaws have been approved by the meeting. They are
definitive and are also base of the translations. Therefore I blocked
them, because it needs to be ensured, that people know, that this is
the stable version. I once thought of blocking en-translation too,
because they are now reviewed by ChapCom, so there must be a stable
version too. However I didn't protect them then, because we might want
to correct typing mistakes et al. The other translations are
unprotected at the moment.
c)The resolutions are quite official documents. As they are now under
discussion, I wanted that everybody sees the version we, Nando and I,
decided on, to ensure that everybody is speaking about the same thing.
d) my vandal paranoia. You will have noticed by now, that I seem to be
a bit paranoid what concerns vandal acts. Well, look at
http://ch.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=&page=
There are quite a few new users I simply don't know who's "behind" and
I don't want to doubt them somehow, but you see that new user accounts
can be created easily and as we're now linked on several Wikimedia
pages, people will also find us, and it's probably not so, that we can
say, we can trust everybody from the beginning, who opens a account or
has one. Believe me, I've seen a lot of vandal acts in different wikis
and it might be, that sombody finds it funny to mess up or discretely
change our resolutions a bit...

(ad Security Council: I must admit, that I've never read any
SC-Resolutions, so I didn't copy their terminology. )
Sysopping policy: When the wiki was created, Delphine sysopped Nando
and me, because we were listed as contact persons at meta. As Ilario
is now presidency candidate and quite involved, he is now also listed
as contact person and he's a sysop. But please understand, imho the 10
people regularly contributing on this ml could all get sysops, I have
no problem with that.

So to sum up, I would like to stress that we never intended to make
any top-down action, we invite everybody here in discussing the
necessary resolutions and their form/style of writing etc. but
sometimes some bureaucracy is unfortunately necessary (and believe me,
as gymnasium-student, you're in an age where you're not really in
favour of bureaucracy and formalities etc. so I regret it too, but I'm
convinced, that it'll will help us later, if we have everything in a
proper legal way).

For the ones, who read until here (and I assume, there are not so
many) I will conclude my mail by apologizing for misunderstandings our
resolutions might have caused and by hoping that you understand my
point of view.

Regards
Michael Bimmler



On 3/15/06, Frederic Schutz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Looking at the latest changes on the CH wiki... is it on purpose that
> the current resolutions look as formal as a UN Security Council
> resolution ?  "RESOLVED... AND... FURTHER RESOLVED... so proposed on the
> fifteenth of March 2006". I know it is borderline to hairsplitting, but
> this makes the whole thing look very bureaucratic, especially given that
> there no formal entity yet... Could we do with "friendlier" texts, please ?
>
> Also, do we really need to protect the pages ? We all know that even if
> changes are made after a resolution has been accepted, they can be
> reverted. The reason I am asking this (in addition to the general
> principle that we should only protect pages if needed) is that there are
> several typos on the page Board/Resolutions/2006/02 that I was ready to
> correct.
>
> Last, but not least... this resolution says that "Wikimedia CH shall
> have its seat in Zurich". Does that mean "until a President is elected",
> or is there a change to the proposed bylaws ?
>
> Frédéric
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediach-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
>


--
Regards
Michael Bimmler
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Michael Bimmler
In reply to this post by Ilario Valdelli
On 3/15/06, Ilario Valdelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >Of course, your argument makes perfect sense. But being an association
> >that promotes Wikipedia and other Wiki-based projects, I would like to
> >think that we can do without the permanent protections, only with a
> >banner saying "This is a resolution voted by the board, and should not
> >be modified anymore". This allows us to send outside a message such as:
> >"look, we really believe in this wiki thing, all our stuff is managed by
> >a Wiki, anyone can edit it, and it works. Of course, we are watching the
> >pages, and if you do something silly, we'll reverse your edits, block
> >you and/or protect the page".
> >
> >
> >
> The funcionalities are different. Same pages are collaboratives pages,
> same pages are service pages.
>
> In Wikipedia we have a lot of pages that are collaborative pages, but
> also a lot of pages that are service pages and are not modifiable by
> no-sysop users (i.e. Home Page). If we think that the pages that you
> analyze are service pages, the block could be correct, if we think that
> these are collaborative pages it isn't.
>
> I am with your opinion, if persons accept the possibility of rollback
> without long discussions :)

2 separate comments after my lenghthy email with principles (but
please still read the other one, because I shorten here very much):
ad block: Okay, I'm also fine with a banner like used on enwp, saying
"this is offical policy" or "this is a official documents, please
don't change it except for typing mistakes". But in one or another way
we have to indicate, that these are not just neat little articles
where you're invited to changed whatever you want (particularly if
you're not on this mailinglist, cf. U. Wäfler...)


>
> >My questions arises from the fact that I started to look at the bylaws
> >in order to translate them in French, and §1.2 says that the seat of the
> >association (note that a Foundation is something very different from the
> >legal point of view) is where the President live, so I was wondering how
> >it fits with this resolution that says Zürich ?
> >
> >
> I think that this point is "salomonic decision" to avoid discussions
> (happily Swiss has not a big and predominant town). Also italian
> wikimedia has taken the same decision. In any case the financial seat
> could be different.
>
ad seat: It has a very basic decision, why I'm supporting Zurich here:
It's somewhere been discussed that I should be the person to which
post is forwarded (as Nando doesn't have the time etc.) and that's
also combined with my "application" for secretary job. Now, when I'm
gonna open this account, I'll do it most probably in Zurich. And until
now I thought, I can in Zurich only open an adress for 8000 Zurich and
not for Berne, Lucerne etc. And as the person who opens the adress has
to be physically present and as I don't want to travel to Lucerne,
Lugano, Berne or Rütli for this, I thought to do the whole thing at
Zurich. But I will doublecheck with the post, whether I could open a
"3000 berne" adress or whatever at Zurich's post. However, as Ilario
said, we had this discussion already once about the seat, I had in
mind, that consensus was reached for Zurich, but if you want we can
rediscuss this again... (By the way: There is nobody from Berne or
Lucerne here afaik. So it might get difficult if you have to go to the
exact place to open a such adress... But as said, I'll doublecheck
that).
Regards
Michael
> Regards
>
> Ilario
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediach-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
>


--
Regards
Michael Bimmler
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Jürg Wolf
In reply to this post by Michael Bimmler
I'm sorry for my recent postings because they were a bit sarcastic a maybe not
clearly defaced as zynical.

My opinion in this whole thing is:
1) If our preliminary board thinks, we need a special postal address - I'm OK
with it because I don't have the whole view. And on the meeting last year we
gave you the mandate and the power to operate towards the swiss chapter. And
that's what you did.
As far as I know, we had not a clear consesus about the "Vereinsadresse" on this
ML and I wondered, why it popped up out of the blue with nearly fixed details.
I'm also fine with Zürich, but I couldn't remember a consensus in this
question.

2) Many thanks to Michael for his very good explanation. You maybe were a bit
too impressed by the thing, that it must be "lawyer-proof". But remember - it
must be lawyer-proof for swiss lawyers and not for US lawyers... ;-)

3) So for swiss legal reasons a "simple" protocol should be enough. So you also
could use a "normal" wording such as:
----------------------------------------
Decisions done at a virtual meeting done by M. Bimmler, N. Stöcklin:
* Wikimedia CH needs for several reasons a post mail address. Therefore we
organize a "Feste Vereinsadresse" offered by Swiss Post. The proposed address
is "Wikimedia CH, 8000 Zürich, Switzerland". To get it we need a resolution of
the preliminary board (which is constitued by the persons mentioned above), a
place in CH and a delivery address.
** The needed resolution is this document
** The place on the "Vereinsadresse" is Zürich but is still a subject of
discussion
** The delivery address is the address of Michael Bimmler as it seems, that he
gets the secretary job of the association.
* As soon as the association is founded, this resolution must be confirmed by
the elected board.
* The costs of this action will be payed by .... but can be reclaimed after the
foundation of the association.

Zürich, 15. 3. 2006

The Preliminary Board of Wikimedia CH
Michael Bimmler, Nando Stöcklin
----------------------------------------
I hope that in board meetings of the elected board a similar wording is used and
not a US-lawyer wording.

Jürg


--
Zitat von Michael Bimmler <[hidden email]>:

> Now there seems to be a big discussion going on here and I would like
> to clarify a few points as the resolutions come from me and Nando:
> ...

_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Frédéric Schütz
In reply to this post by Michael Bimmler
Michael Bimmler wrote:

<snip the bits about the resolutions which are ok by me>

> 3. About the formal language.
> I have discussed this matter some days ago in IRC with Jean-Baptiste
> Soufron, the legal coordinator/advisor of the foundation and he told
> me, that some formal requirements need to be there (e.g. when mandates
> are terminated etc.) because of the legal validity. The exact
> terminology like "resolved" etc. is mostly a "product of the moment"
> and I have no problem with changing this, as long as the proposed
> alternatives are legally ok.

Excellent; I like Jürg's example a lot: as you say, we need the
important things to be said, but we can keep a normal style. There is
absolutely no worries to have about the legality of this; this is how
all the associations I know operate; in CH, even board meetings of
companies use this style (although I can not vouch for the very, very
big companies...) rather than the "UN Security Council style".

To finish about this part of the discussion, the main reason why I
mentioned this problem is because seeing these resolutions would make
many people believe that they are dealing with a very bureaucratic
board; I would personaly be rather reluctant to join an association that
produces such resolutions...

> 4. About page protection
> So therefore I blocked the main page.

Fine with me; en.w.o does the same.

> b) I once thought of blocking en-translation too,
> because they are now reviewed by ChapCom, so there must be a stable
> version too. However I didn't protect them then, because we might want
> to correct typing mistakes et al.

Which is a good idea, since I did that just 10 minutes ago...

> c)The resolutions are quite official documents. As they are now under
> discussion, I wanted that everybody sees the version we, Nando and I,
> decided on, to ensure that everybody is speaking about the same thing.

(as a sidenote, don't forget that you can point to a particular version
of the page).

I would not mind if login was only possible after "approval", as is done
on the wikimedia website; my general idea was that it would be good to
adopt the usual "good faith" attitude towards contributions, and change
our minds if needed. Disclaimer: I am an optimist... ;-) And it is not
really a big issue; I just thought I'd mention it "en passant".

BTW; I still have this couple of typos to correct on the second
resolution ;-)

> (ad Security Council: I must admit, that I've never read any
> SC-Resolutions, so I didn't copy their terminology. )

You are quite close, believe me, although they have a very large list of
verbs they can pick from to start their sentences ;-)

> Sysopping policy: When the wiki was created, Delphine sysopped Nando
> and me, because we were listed as contact persons at meta. As Ilario
> is now presidency candidate and quite involved, he is now also listed
> as contact person and he's a sysop. But please understand, imho the 10
> people regularly contributing on this ml could all get sysops, I have
> no problem with that.

I don't think we have much need for (more) sysops at the moment, so
that's fine...

> So to sum up, I would like to stress that we never intended to make
> any top-down action,

I did not have this feeling, so no problem here -- my comments were
really more about the "format" than the content; which make the whole
discussion not such a big deal.

> we invite everybody here in discussing the
> necessary resolutions and their form/style of writing etc. but
> sometimes some bureaucracy is unfortunately necessary (and believe me,
> as gymnasium-student, you're in an age where you're not really in
> favour of bureaucracy and formalities etc. so I regret it too, but I'm
> convinced, that it'll will help us later, if we have everything in a
> proper legal way).

Speaking as someone who has been founding members of several
associations (and currently treasurer and secretary in 2 different
associations), the amount of red tape can be kept very low. If is good
to keep good records of discussions, minutes of meetings, etc, but this
can done without too much bureaucratic overhead. I'm happy to help with
anything if needed (I also have access to a specialised accountant in my
close family...).

Cheers,

Frédéric

_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Nando Stöcklin-2
In reply to this post by Jürg Wolf


2006/3/15, Jürg Wolf <[hidden email]>:
My opinion in this whole thing is:
1) If our preliminary board thinks, we need a special postal address - I'm OK
with it because I don't have the whole view. And on the meeting last year we
gave you the mandate and the power to operate towards the swiss chapter. And
that's what you did.
As far as I know, we had not a clear consesus about the "Vereinsadresse" on this
ML and I wondered, why it popped up out of the blue with nearly fixed details.
I'm also fine with Zürich, but I couldn't remember a consensus in this
question.

The Thread was: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/2006-January/000168.html

The votes were:
*Berne: Manuel, Gatto Nero
*Zurich: Michael, Robin, Ilario, Nando
*Zug: Ilario
*Lucerne: Ilario

So, it was not a clear consensus, but two third of the voters preferred Zurich. But of course, we need to change our bylaws to fix this point. So, if somebody is not fine with Zurich, just let us know as soon as possible.

Nando

_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Nando Stöcklin-2
In reply to this post by Michael Bimmler
Thanks Michael!

4. About page protection
We have a wiki. A wiki means everybody can edit, at Wikimedia CH only
people logged in.
But, there are 2 reasons which are imho pro blocking some pages:
a)www.wikimedia.ch, which is redirecting to our wiki, is mentioned at
the bottom of the Weltwoche article about "us" and therefore people of
the public might surf to our website. We don't really want them to see
some vandalism at the first page, the main page, do we? So therefore I
blocked the main page.
b) the german bylaws have been approved by the meeting. They are
definitive and are also base of the translations. Therefore I blocked
them, because it needs to be ensured, that people know, that this is
the stable version. I once thought of blocking en-translation too,
because they are now reviewed by ChapCom, so there must be a stable
version too. However I didn't protect them then, because we might want
to correct typing mistakes et al. The other translations are
unprotected at the moment.
c)The resolutions are quite official documents. As they are now under
discussion, I wanted that everybody sees the version we, Nando and I,
decided on, to ensure that everybody is speaking about the same thing.

In the future, we could mark the resolutions as draft and keep them open until they are discussed on this mailinglist. What do you think?

Nando

--
Nando Stöcklin
Chratzernstr. 33
4803 Vordemwald
Schweiz
0041 (0)62 751 39 42 (P) http://www.nandostoecklin.ch

Mit bereits über 600 Artikeln: Indianer-Wiki - die freie Enzyklopädie über die Indianer. http://www.indianer-wiki.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Ilario Valdelli
This is a good idea. It's could be also correct to use
http://www.wikimedia.ch to indicate some important resolutions taken
here in the mailing list.

If a new member enter in the foundation, it could be informed of the
previous decisions.

Regards

Ilario

On 3/16/06, Nando Stöcklin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks Michael!
>
>
> >
> > 4. About page protection
> > We have a wiki. A wiki means everybody can edit, at Wikimedia CH only
> > people logged in.
> > But, there are 2 reasons which are imho pro blocking some pages:
> > a)www.wikimedia.ch, which is redirecting to our wiki, is mentioned at
> > the bottom of the Weltwoche article about "us" and therefore people of
> > the public might surf to our website. We don't really want them to see
> > some vandalism at the first page, the main page, do we? So therefore I
> > blocked the main page.
> > b) the german bylaws have been approved by the meeting. They are
> > definitive and are also base of the translations. Therefore I blocked
> > them, because it needs to be ensured, that people know, that this is
> > the stable version. I once thought of blocking en-translation too,
> > because they are now reviewed by ChapCom, so there must be a stable
> > version too. However I didn't protect them then, because we might want
> > to correct typing mistakes et al. The other translations are
> > unprotected at the moment.
> > c)The resolutions are quite official documents. As they are now under
> > discussion, I wanted that everybody sees the version we, Nando and I,
> > decided on, to ensure that everybody is speaking about the same thing.
>
>  In the future, we could mark the resolutions as draft and keep them open
> until they are discussed on this mailinglist. What do you think?
>
>  Nando
>
> --
> Nando Stöcklin
> Chratzernstr. 33
> 4803 Vordemwald
> Schweiz
> 0041 (0)62 751 39 42 (P) http://www.nandostoecklin.ch
>
> Mit bereits über 600 Artikeln: Indianer-Wiki - die freie Enzyklopädie über
> die Indianer. http://www.indianer-wiki.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediach-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions

Michael Bimmler
In reply to this post by Jürg Wolf
On 3/15/06, Jürg Wolf <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm sorry for my recent postings because they were a bit sarcastic a maybe not
> clearly defaced as zynical.
Well, your postings were ok with me...

>
> My opinion in this whole thing is:
> 1) If our preliminary board thinks, we need a special postal address - I'm OK
> with it because I don't have the whole view. And on the meeting last year we
> gave you the mandate and the power to operate towards the swiss chapter. And
> that's what you did.
> As far as I know, we had not a clear consesus about the "Vereinsadresse" on this
> ML and I wondered, why it popped up out of the blue with nearly fixed details.
> I'm also fine with Zürich, but I couldn't remember a consensus in this
> question.
Okay, I mut have misremembered that with the consensus but as Nando
pointed out later, there was a majority for ZH. but we can really
rediscuss that.
>
> 2) Many thanks to Michael for his very good explanation. You maybe were a bit
> too impressed by the thing, that it must be "lawyer-proof". But remember - it
> must be lawyer-proof for swiss lawyers and not for US lawyers... ;-)
>
Hm, Jean-Baptiste Soufron is actually a French lawyer, anyway, I had
not the time to contact a Swiss lawyer (although knowing quite a few)
> 3) So for swiss legal reasons a "simple" protocol should be enough. So you also
> could use a "normal" wording such as:
> ----------------------------------------
> <snip excellent proposal>
Yes, that looks fine to me. I will now unlock the second resolution
page (I think, we can leave the first one as it is, otherwise we'll
never get finished) and we can try to discuss this protocol here in
public on the ml. BTW: I remember where I got "resolution" from: Not
from UNSC but from Wikimedia Foundation board, see
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
But as said, that US terminology.
> ----------------------------------------
> I hope that in board meetings of the elected board a similar wording is used and
> not a US-lawyer wording.
>
Sure. I really join you in thinking, that too much formalism is not good.
> Jürg
>
Michael

>
> --
> Zitat von Michael Bimmler <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Now there seems to be a big discussion going on here and I would like
> > to clarify a few points as the resolutions come from me and Nando:
> > ...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediach-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
>


--
Regards
Michael Bimmler
_______________________________________________
Wikimediach-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
12