Talk:Wikimedia India/MoA

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Deadline for deliberations[edit]

It has been suggested here that we finish the deliberations by 13th March 2010, that is, this Saturday. --Gurubrahma 06:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very short notice --Naveenpf 02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Have we forwarded this to all indic wikipedia mailing lists ? I have forwarded to ml mailing list today. so we must forward to all indic language mailing lists and wait for comments --Naveenpf 05:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
We need to consider not just Indic wikipedia mailing lists but also Indic wiktionary mailing lists and other Wikimedia projects. As we may not even know some of these projects, Meta has been created for inter-project coordination. As the MoA are not set in stone (unlike in the case of a trust IIRC) and as due efforts have been made at disseminating the initiative, it should be okay. The reason behind having a tight deadline was to avoid the scenario that we had last time when we could not close out the discussion on proposed bye laws. If consensus does not evolve by EoD today,I would not have issues with the deadline being pushed back by another 3-4 days or a week nor would I think that the EC would have such issues. --Gurubrahma 06:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Communication sent to Telugu wiki community few days back. Arjunaraoc 05:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
forwarded to sanskrit wikipedia today --Naveenpf 05:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
What are the changes we will incorporate in the initial version MOA ? When will be the final version put up in meta ? --Naveenpf 11:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
After taking the discussions so far into consideration and due deliberations with legal consultants, we have arrived at this draft for the final ratification by and approval of the chapters committee. Thanks for bearing with us. --Gurubrahma 12:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
After taking the discussions with the Chapters Committee meeting at Berlin last month (where Arun and Hari represented the India chapter) into consideration, we have arrived at this modified draft for the final ratification by and approval of the chapters committee and for filing with the Karnataka government authorities. Thanks a lot for all your support in bearing with the delays. --Gurubrahma 00:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Article VII - Composition of EC, #4[edit]

It reads:

The term of membership of Executive Committee members shall be two years at a time. A member can be re-elected to the Executive Committee for further term(s) of two years, provided there shall be a gap of one year after every continuous four years of membership of the Executive Committee.

My comments:

(a) Just a doubt: Is this rule a legal requirement? Can we have any modifications so that every two years at least 1-2 members resign compulsorily for new members to come in. This will ensure continuity with a mix of old and new members – something like the Rajya Sabha. Some Deja vu here on this. I support a 2 year term fully though, as IMHO it is the minimum time required to create a visible impact.

(b) If the longest uninterrupted stretch that a person can be a part of the EC is four years and if the term of the EC is two years, it does not make sense to have just "a gap of one year after every continuous four years of membership of the Executive Committee." I suggest that it be increased to two years so that it is also co-terminus with the term of the EC.

--Gurubrahma 12:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with this is that you'd have a situation where either the entire EC changes in year 3 which may not be a good idea. Suggestions welcome on how we could create criterion to ask an EC member to resign to make way for a new one. -- GKJohn 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
A gap of one year still does not help because we are then expecting some one from an EC to resign mid-way in his/her two-year term, which need not happen. A strong assumption that we are making in the discussion is that the entire EC would get reelected at the end of the first term or that the entire EC would even stand for reelection, which may or may not happen - I, for one, would be happy if it does not happen as there would be more new faces and a mix of continuity and change. Several alternatives are possible however - at the end of two years, that is the first term, the EC may be expanded to 9 members so that even if the entire previous EC gets re-voted, we would have continuity of at least 2 members for the fifth and sixth years where the original seven would not be around for the term, eligible for reelection only in the term comprising seventh and eighth years of the Chapter. Even if the EC does not get expanded, there will be at least one new entrant into the EC at the end of the first term because I know for sure that one EC member is willing to step down. --Gurubrahma 06:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Your suggestion is one that can be explored. Which is expanding the EC in Year 3 and Year 3 only. This would be a one off case. -- GKJohn 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Why two years ? mainly all other chapters has 1 year , Talk:Wikimedia_India/bylaws/historic#Existing_chapters --Naveenpf 03:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Primarily because of the size and diversity, I would guess. Most of those countries would be smaller than Andhra Pradesh and most of them have single languages. During the previous attempts at chapter formation (2005-06), if I remember right, one suggestion was to have the founding EC for 2 years to set up things and later ECs for 1 year but legal opinion shot it down. --Gurubrahma 04:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point and a good reference from Naveenpf. There was good debate in the discussions of the drafting team regarding this. 2 years was arrived at, as a compromise, as it is neither too short (1 year) nor too long (3 year) for an effective impact by the executive committee. Arjunaraoc 04:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Is something we spent a lot of time debating. We figured this would be the best compromise and provide some measure of stability for a new chapter. Gautam John 05:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you publish the discussions of MoA draft team ? this is open for comments and so we must have consensus here too --Naveenpf 06:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
As in? From what I can see, the MoA in the current form are the distilled results of the discussions. --Gurubrahma 06:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Article VII - Composition of EC (#9) and #11[edit]

It reads:

If the General Body decides by a two-thirds majority to delete the name of a member from the Executive Committee membership for any proven unprofessional behavior or conduct, or action prejudicial to the interest of the Society, provided before any disciplinary action of such a nature is taken, the concerned member will be given an opportunity to appear before a meeting of the General Body and present his/her case at the next General Body or Special General Body Meeting.

My comment:

My understanding is that it is two-thirds majority of the full strength General Body and not the small number (possibly) of members actually attending. This is to prevent freakish accidents from occuring.

--Gurubrahma 12:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I think in it's current form it will be of the quorum at least. -- GKJohn 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Article VIII - Powers of Office bearers- a. President #5.2.[edit]

It reads:

All expenses of over Rupees One Lakh (Rs. 1,00,000) shall first be approved by the Executive Committee.

My comment:

For recurring expenses like rents and salaries, does this 1 lakh connote per mensem or per annum? --Gurubrahma 06:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Any, every and each expense. -- GKJohn 14:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Arjun's comment: For a non profit organization, I feel 1,00,000 is too high a bar for spending without approval of Executive Committee. I propose an amount like Rs 25,000. Arjunaraoc 04:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that create a huge administrative hurdle going forward? Look forward to other PoVs on this too. Gautam John 04:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair point about Rs. 1,00,000 being too high. However, the President does not have a free hand even for expenses below Rs. 1 lakh. #5.1 suggests that it has to be approved by either the treasurer or an EC member. So, I am fine with it. Going forward, we may need to look at amounts for which Treasurer's approval is a must rather than that of any EC member. --Gurubrahma 09:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on reading the MoA, I don't fully understand how payments less than Rs100,000 are meant to work. Who approves them? How many people are necessary to make a payment/ write a cheque for an amount less than Rs.100,00? While it is clearly important to make the rules flexible, I don't think that any one person should necessarily be able to; I think it may make for better governance if everything requires at least two people. --Aprabhala 12:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two checks on this, the preceding clause says that "All expenses incurred by the President, in connections with the Society's work, shall be approved by the Treasurer or other Executive Committee Member as may be so decided." And two clauses after that we have the check that the bank account will be jointly operated "He/She shall operate the Bank Account(s) of the Society jointly with such persons as are authorised by the Executive Committee." Gautam John 12:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
My experience with another Non profit professional society is that all the major expenses (conduct of conferences, sponsoring of events etc) are approved by Executive committee and there were meetings every month. There was concern that such regular meetings may not be feasible for this entity, hence it will be helpful for President to have special powers with certain limits. Arjunaraoc 05:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany[edit]

Two places where it reads:

"regardless of caste, creed, religion or sex"

My comments:

I suggest including age and region as well.

--Gurubrahma 12:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Age as much as allowed by law, I'd say. Region definitely! -- Sundar 13:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Concur -- GKJohn 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is one of the long-felt requirements. Glad it is taking shape. I thank the founding members and wish them all success.--Rsmn 05:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at a few international 'non-discrimination' clauses, plus the standard Indian ones, can I suggest:

"regardless of caste, creed, religion, region, race, sex or sexual orientation"

I don't see why we shouldn't be more forward thinking than other similar organisations in India.

- --Aprabhala 06:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair point -- GKJohn 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur, though I am not sure about the Indian legal position yet on LGBTs. --Gurubrahma 13:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm surely not a lawyer. But, non-discrimination against them wouldn't be against law, I suppose. Anyway, I leave it to the lawyers. -- Sundar 04:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Life membership?[edit]

I don't see an option to become a life member (instead of paying annual dues). I feel that is a revenue option not being pursued. Thoughts? Regards, Ganeshk 13:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ganesh, pretty interesting suggestion. The EC should probably pursue this. However, let me give my individual take on this as of now - the primary objective of the society is evangelism of the projects and the values they stand for, with revenue streams being secondary. As a not-for-profit society, we need to keep ourselves relevant to the larger society - an annual mode of membership keeps us true and straight to our cause. In "The Story of My Experiments with Truth," Mahatma Gandhi talks of a society they started in South Africa which had lot of funds - however, after he returned to India, infighting started over the funds available. Ever since, Gandhi ensured that all his societies/ trusts were run through public funding on an ad-hoc basis. That would be my personal credo as well in this regard. --Gurubrahma 13:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Guru, I respect your view point. I just wanted the option reviewed with a "Yes" or "No". Thanks. Ganeshk 13:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I support Ganeshk views --Naveenpf 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair point. Will address it. How much would you see the life time membership fee being? 10x of the yearly? The trouble with this is that it precludes the raising of funds by increasing the yearly fee at a future point. Plus, the yearly fee ensures that you have active and current participants and participation as well. In a sense, it's a positive act that must be done every year which would imply those that are interested will keep doing it. Gautam John 05:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The need[edit]

Starting Wikimedia indian chapter is very much essential now as wikipedia and it's sister projects (regional language) are slowly gaining popularity among the public. Though the main stream media has extending it's support, Wikimedia has not reached the widespread audience. I can sincerely say, through Wikimedia India, these projects gain importance and will be more useful to the users. —రవిచంద్ర 05:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ravichandra for sharing your views. Arjunaraoc 05:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Ravichandra, absolutely agree. Awareness of the existence of Wikipedia in regional languages is very poor even in metropolitan cities. Creating awareness of these projects in all possible fora should be one of the key focus areas of the emerging India chapter. Reaching out to state governments to take note of and help promote use of wikipedia (and contribution to) in the state languages is crucial. Malayalam wikipedians have been leading the way in getting government traction. Something for others to try and emulate. ---Arunram 13:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Regional Representation.[edit]

Since we are very diverse group, Can we have some sort of policy to "include everyone" on the EC. Say 10 members from different indic wikis or region / state wise. This would avoid making the foundation regional / lingual. Logicwiki 07:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would be a wise idea. We'd then have to keep expanding the EC every time a new Indic Language wiki is formed. And the EC would conceivably be as large as the General Body. That said, I think it would be wise to create a series of sub-committees once the Chapter is formed. Gautam John 10:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "fixed" representation is a good idea because the number of languages, as Gautam pointed out, are just too large. At the same time, it does seem to be important to underscore diversity. How can we do that? Two ways come to mind: (1) To include a general statement in the MoA that clearly indicates that the composition of the EC should at all times be with a view to diversity, perhaps naming specifics like regional and gender diversities. This general statement can then be interpreted each year (perhaps prior to reconstituting members as the need arises), with a more specifically worded principle that the EC puts out publicly. For example, based on the current composition of the EC, and assuming we were reconstituting some members, that principle could read: "The EC especially encourages women and Wikipedians from North India, North-East India, and Eastern India to join, both as members of the society and as members of the EC." (2) The problem with general statements and well-intentioned principles, as we've seen, is that they don't always translate into action. The option is then to assign some fixed parameters to the board, and this is better than fixing seats. For eg. a rule (not a guideline) can be that all times, there need to be at least two women and one person who represents each functional region of India. (For eg. functional regions could be: South, North, East, West, Central and North-East). Starting from now onwards, each time a board member resigns or a position opens up (or expansion is sought), then candidates under consideration will have to fit the guideline. Of course, some candidates might fill more than one slot (all women candidates would), but that would be a delimiting criterion for being considered. This is more involved and requires far more discussion to finalise, but is a good idea to think with. It doesn't have to be done immediately of course; this rule can be issued after the chapter is created even, as a set of terms that the chapter will abide by, aside from minimum legal regulations required for registration. --Aprabhala 12:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that, in principle, it is a good idea. However, practically it may pose several issues. For instance, while I am currently in South India, I plan to move out in a couple of months. While I have been an administrator on English Wikipedia, I am also among the top 100 (may be even top 50) contributors on Telugu Wikipedia. Thus, these issues of identity are vexatious to resolve. Moreover, the aims and objectives of Wikimedia Chapter are to promote the Wikimedia projects - by this, I understand that the focus is on educating and enrolling potential users rather than focus on issues of representation based on region. --Gurubrahma 13:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
My experience with societies thus far is it is best to keep the rules / MoA simple. It is best to address some these through consensus of the general body and suitable action. Getting knotted in rules does not help, it only complicates things. FOcus then moves from action (to meet objectives) to conformance which is really not the intent of any society. My few paise. regards --Arunram 13:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that if the current group of people who are responsible for writing these bye-laws can agree that more thought needs to go into how adequate representation can be ensured (not necessarily by location of the Wikipedian within India, but rather, around which language/region they edit in/from), and see whether those thoughts can lead to the formulation of an operating principle, which is then implemented, at some point after the inception of the Wikimedia India chapter, then that should take care of the issue. --Aprabhala 19:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As the activites of India chapter gather momentum, the establishment of sub chapters/ branches will address this issue. Till such time the executive committee members can be given specific responsibility for regions/groups of languages to interface with such groups. Arjunaraoc 05:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Representation of the different language communities in WikiMedia India chapter, and the establishment of future chapters are different topics. For my comment regarding the establishment of sub chapters/ branches, see the section Talk:Wikimedia_India/MoA#Can_we_have_the_branches_of_the_society_.3F--Shijualex 08:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Working language[edit]

I think there should be a clause about the official working language of the Chapter (which I believe, would be English).

"The working language of the Society will be English, although translations of documents and other material generated by the Society into other languages is encouraged. Where there is disagreement between the English version of a document, and a translated version of a document, the English version is considered to be correct and binding."

This is a pretty standard clause for the societies, but is especially important for the Indian chapter, given the number of languages in India. Utkarshraj Atmaram 10:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is an excellent idea. Gautam John 10:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Concur. --Gurubrahma 13:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Support ... --Naveenpf 04:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I too support this.--Shijualex 04:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea! When I met the chapter members from Wikimedia CH (Switzerland), they explained how they take efforts to translate the major documents and releases into all of their official languages. (In fact, he joked that there's no common lingua franca that is spoken by all the board members there!) It's difficult, but important to try and do that here. Once the MoA is finalised, we should approach the volunteers signed up for translation to translate it to as many Indian languages as possible, -- Sundar 05:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Should English be the official language ? Does it make sense to transact in English while the whole purpose is to promote Sanskrit ?. Doesn't it sound strange for example, French language promotional activity being carried out in Spanish? Why do we assume that EC members are incapable of transacting in Sanskrit ? I hope we don't envisage a situation wherein this forum is run by people who have no idea about Sanskrit. This is a professional forum with a specific purpose and, obviously, all EC members are expected to know Sanskrit. Here issues related with translations are a non issue. As for lovers of the language, Sanskrit being at the core of all Indian languages, Sanskrit texts can be better understood than English ones. Varma. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.101.184.76 (talk • contribs) .


Does it make sense to transact in English while the whole purpose is to promote Sanskrit ?.

The mission of WikiMedia:India chapter is not to promote Sanskrit or any other language. But to promote the Wiki projects of Wikimedia foundation irrespective of language. Since this chapter is in India, along with English all the Indic language wiki projects will get prominence. Here we are talking about the language that can be used for the official communication of WikiMedia India chapter. --Shijualex 10:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Shiju. There is no sense in making Sanskrit the official language of communication.--Aprabhala 11:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Sorry, I thought this forum is for promoting Sanskrit language. What you say make sense. Varma.

Support English with all efforts to translate into as many languages as possible. Joining in the discussions a bit late, but very impressed with the efforts so far. Go for it! Prashanthns 04:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

VOTING[edit]

Every individual and institutional member of the Society shall have one vote and it shall be exercised in person and there shall be no proxy voting. However in case institutional membership, the institutional member shall appoint a proxy ( who need not be member) who shall attend and exercise his vote in a representative capacity. Is these Wikipedia style ? Is it secret ballot voting ? --Naveenpf 03:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah. This clause need to be defined.--Shijualex 05:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The voting is as per the Karnataka Society's Act. Also, Article V has this "VOTING: All voting shall be by secret ballot. In all cases the person presiding over the meeting shall have a tie-breaker vote." Gautam John 05:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
A point for all of us to note is that, the chapter is intended to be a non for profit "Society" and is governed by local laws. Therefore it is important to recognize that it becomes we must balance stipulated guidelines of the law and wikipedia norms and practices. It in cases like these the auditors counsel and advise is sought. regards ---Arunram 05:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
People who are getting elected to the EC must have some minimum knowledge about wikipedia. like wat we do for admins, bureaucrats and sysops. we must have a regulation like these. I dont see it in MoA --Naveenpf 05:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Not necessary IMHO. The Society is similar but not identical to the projects - For instance, "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and the RfA process is not exactly voting but consensus building where as the society is democratic in its intent and voting is one of the instruments to enforce it. The society is intended to promote, advocate and engage in the evangelism of the projects - this implies and includes people beyond the current set of contributors. --Gurubrahma 06:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Naveen you bring up an interesting point for discussion. We must examine the objectives of any chapter, its purpose and therefore what it takes to run it. Without doubt it is extremely important that there is good understanding of wikimedia, its projects, the community and their needs. It also requires few other important capabilities within the EC - the experiencing of running a non profit, liaising with various bodies (govt, statutory bodies, etc), community building, fund raising (as needed), organizing events, outreach, advocacy, etc. Chapters is intended to deal with many stakeholders. Wikipedians surely are one of the important stakeholders. Request all to think about this. regards ---Arunram 13:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Although, content contribution to Wikimedia projects may not be mandatory, for any society, it is important that the key members, especially those constituting the executive committee should have a good knowledge of how wikipedia functions. Else, how are they expected to discharge the functions of the society? Of course, skills OTHER than contributing to wikipedia projects are extremely important - fundraising, evangelising wikipedia, conducting workshops, managing organisations and people - and these should be additional criteria for being in the EC. Prashanthns 04:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we have the branches of the society ?[edit]

what are the criteria ? do we need to put it here ? --Naveenpf 03:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That can be taken up at a later stage. Let the chapter be formed now.--Shijualex 05:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This would be an operational question post formation. Gautam John 05:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The Chartered accountant also suggested that the branches can be handled later. There is no constraint about supporting Wikimedia activities all over India till the branches are formed. Arjunaraoc 05:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There has been a suggestion made in earlier meetings to have Special Interest Groups (SIGs) for cities and languages. This proposal will be tabled for discussion. This is however meant to organize voluntary efforts across the country and language specific wikipedia initiatives. It is a initiative different from chapter formation. Arunram 06:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


There is no concept of sub chapters/ branches for the chapters of WikiMedia foundation. If any state/city want to start another chapter they can do it. For example, see the existing chapters in US]. In US, there is New York city chapter. But there is no WikiMedia United states chapter. Also see the list of proposed chapters for US. --Shijualex 07:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


It does not mean that we can't have sub chapters/branches, if it helps us meet the objectives better. United states is not an appropriate comparison for India in this context, as India has much more diversity. By having such a structure, I feel we will be able to grow and sustain Wikipedia better and also streamline the dealing with the parent organization.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arjunaraoc (talk • contribs) .


We can take up this topic at a later stage after the chapter is formed. --Shijualex 10:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the point on regional representation (or diversity in general) is a crucial one that the chapter needs to take up once formed. We don't have to follow other chapters here; if there is a need - and desire - to create linguistic or other groupings, we can do that provided we have a structure and rationale. It seems like it will too cumbersome (and possibly unproductive) to include representational issues in the MoA here - at least this seems to be the opinion of the majority. I agree with Shiju's point but would stress that this is an important consideration for the chapter to address, and it must formally after inception.--Aprabhala 11:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done... we will discuss this after the formation of Chapter --Naveenpf 11:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Article VIII - Point 11[edit]

11. In the absence of the President, the Secretary or any person authorised by the Executive Committee shall perform all the duties of the President along with his other duties. ... Do we need to modify any person authorised by the Executive Committee other than Treasurer  ? --Naveenpf 03:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to understand: why not the treasurer? My understanding is that if he steps in as in-charge president, someone else would have to approve the expenses. --Gurubrahma 04:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. This is the way it would work. Gautam John 05:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Membership[edit]

From http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership The current membership fee is £12/year, reduced to £6/year for concessions (defined as under 18, full-time student, unemployed and OAPs). This fee is reconsidered at the Annual General Meeting. . We too have contributors to Wikipedia who are under 18 --Naveenpf 03:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Might make sense for the contributors from the rural areas. But in reality how many of them have access to internet and wikis.
My suggestion would be to seek the help of some organizations to sponsor the contributors who are not earning, especially if they are from rural areas. According to me no need to waive the fee for any one. --Shijualex 05:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Will check on the under-18. IIRC, they need to be represented by a guardian. Gautam John 05:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can there be a formal way for the chapter, upon inception, to waive fees for those with demonstrable financial need? I take the point about this being a rare situation (i.e. internet access + financial need) but it seems like a nice thing to do, if it's not much trouble. Perhaps this is another point that the chapter team might consider for when the chapter commences.--Aprabhala 11:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

While the transactions are in English how can the common man from rural areas expected to take part? Again a case for making Sanskrit as the lingua franca of this forum. Varma.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.101.184.76 (talk • contribs) .

Varma, asking us to communicate in Sanskrit is like asking for Latin to be the official language of communication for all European chapters, i.e. totally ludicrous. This is not helpful. Please help us productively.--Aprabhala 11:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was under the impression that this forum is for promoting Sanskrit. Actually, I received this link from another group where similar activities are going on. Hence, I was proceeding with a wrong assumption. Please excuse me. Varma.

I think some more clarification is also necessary as to who shall prescribe the application form for membership and modify it from time to time in future.--Nilotpal42 12:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Permissions[edit]

If somebody wants to conduct an awareness session on wikimedia projects to some college/organization on behalf of WMIN. What is the procedure to be followed by 1. A non-member of Association. 2. A Member of association. Do we have any laws covering these questions? — రవిచంద్ర 11:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (Ravi Chandra)

Extending on the factor of authority/authorization, does the MoA need to talk about public relations, media relations. Sooner or later, the chapter would be interviewed/quoted by the press and it is good to have a mechanism in place to determine who can speak for the chapter. Am I over-engineering? This is the first time I'm participating in such an exercise. --Natrajdr 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a good point - but I think it is a point better addressed in regulations (like some of the points above) than in the MOA or rules. Certainly though, a point to note.--Aprabhala 16:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Article IV - ENROLMENT OF MEMBERSHIP[edit]

Why do we have a different membership fee for indian nationals and foreigners? I think that anybody who lives in India and would like to be a member of the chapter should be joining in similar terms - is there a legal restriction? --Natrajdr 08:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea (I think) is that foreigners, whether western or otherwise, will be a minority of our membership anyway, and that to the extent that they have slightly higher incomes (a broad generalisation, of course) that $10 is not much to ask as a means of sustaining revenue. Honestly, I don't think that the difference between $2 and $10 is enough for anyone to not consider joining; besides the Wikimedia India chapter could consider waiving fees for anyone who can make the case.--Aprabhala 16:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

C. The Aims and Objects of the Society[edit]

There is no reference to to the Wikimedia foundation or Wikipedia on this (key) section. Is it intentional? After all, the chapter be using the features/functions of Wikipedia, working for improving the use of Wikipedia by a bunch of Wikipedians (clichéd, yes - but couldn't help it :)) -- Natrajdr 08:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, from my understanding of the situation (and in conversation with the drafters during our monthly meet-ups) this is deliberate. The point of the "Aims and Objectives" section is to qualify for tax exemption as a non-profit society under Indian law, and tax law here only recognises very detailed and specific objectives - hence the words you see, which are the closes fit between Indian tax law and Wikipedia and sister entities. The auditor advising Indian Wikipedians has made it clear that using the word "Wikipedia" will thoroughly confuse the registration officers and cause unnecessary delays, so what the wording does here is spell out in clear terms the aims and objectives of Wikimedia entities themselves.--Aprabhala 16:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Final version of MoA[edit]

After taking the discussions so far into consideration and due deliberations with legal consultants, we have arrived at this draft for the final ratification by and approval of the chapters committee. I would like to take this opportunity for thanking one and all in enriching the MoA and bringing the objective of establishing Wikimedia India closer to fruition. The reason for having a separate page for the final version of MoA is to preserve the earlier discussions and inputs in the current form. --Gurubrahma 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

After taking the discussions with the Chapters Committee meeting at Berlin last month (where Arun and Hari represented the India chapter) into consideration, we have arrived at this modified draft for the final ratification by and approval of the chapters committee and for filing with the Karnataka government authorities. Thanks a lot for all your support in bearing with the delays. --Gurubrahma 00:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)