On 3/15/06, Ilario Valdelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > 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
