Re: [Wikimediach-l] Board resolutions
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 Wikimediach-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l ___ Wikimediach-l mailing list Wikimediach-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Re: [Wikimediach-l] Translation
Nando Stöcklin wrote: Am I correct in thinking that ff. in ein Verein gemäss Artikel 60 ff. des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches. means and following ? Yes, this is correct. Ok, it was missing in the English version, corrected. BTW, what does ff. stand for in German ? Frédéric ___ Wikimediach-l mailing list Wikimediach-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
Re: [Wikimediach-l] Board resolutions
On 3/15/06, Jürg Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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 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
Re: [Wikimediach-l] Board resolutions
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
