On 3/16/06, Frederic Schutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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". > See my last point, terminology comes from WMF resolutions (partly). And as said, I'm ok with Jürg's proposal. > 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... > Sure. > > 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). Yep, right. > > 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". > Hm, that would be kind of antiwikistyle as well... > BTW; I still have this couple of typos to correct on the second > resolution ;-) Unprotected second resolution now --> if there any doubts look from now on in the history who made the current version > > > (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 ;-) Hm, unfortunately I didn't have access to this list ;-) > > > 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... > Ok. > > 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...). > That's great. > Cheers, > Regards Michael > Frédéric > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediach-l mailing list > Wikimediach-l@Wikipedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l >
-- Regards Michael Bimmler _______________________________________________ Wikimediach-l mailing list Wikimediach-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
