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...
> > 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...
> > 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,
> Frédéric
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediach-l mailing list
> Wikimediach-l@Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l

Michael Bimmler
Wikimediach-l mailing list

Reply via email to