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...).



Wikimediach-l mailing list

Reply via email to