Talk:Amical Wikimedia/AAV

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archived talk page, previously at Talk:Associació Amical Viquipèdia

AffCom Questions[edit]

  • Who are the people behind this application?
    • How many? (Is the data in Meta current? Please give the most up-to-date info!)
We are currently 66 active members (58 wikimedians, 8 non wikimedians). We had 29 founding members when the Association started back in 2009. Since then, 38 more people have joined Amical (one of the founding members -and our first secretary-, Jordicollcosta, died, back in 2010).
    • Any prominent Wiki[pm]edians?
  1. Lilaroja is an active member of the Research Committee (RCom) of the WMF.
  2. Kippelboy is an active member of the GLAM Project. He is a GLAM Ambassador and Wikipedian in residence in the National Art Museum of Catalonia (MNAC); he also was Wikipedian in residence in the Picasso Museum. WLM in Catalan area 2012 & 2011 offwiki coordinator.
  3. Davidpar was Wikipedian in residence in Palafrugell's cultural institutions last summer.
  4. Josep Nogué (Amical's Treasurer) is a member of the Grant Advisory Committee.
  5. Gomà (Amical's president) is a well known active member in Meta.
  6. Vriullop is a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team, alma mater (onwiki and offwiki leader by peer's acclamation) of Wiki Loves Monuments in the Catalan countries (2011, 2012)
  7. Paucabot (Amical's board member for the Balearic Islands) is one of the most active contributors in Catalan WMF projects (see stats). He is also Viquiescoles project coordinator and founder, an educational project for introducing Wikipedia in several elementary schools.
  8. CDani (Amical's board member for Andorra); first editor of a non-English article in Wikipedia [1], coordinator of Andorran heritage contacts for WLM Andorra 2012 & 2011.
  9. Pallares (Amical's secretary) Is the coordinator for the local project for Wikipedia for elder people.
  10. Gus.Dan is Amical's board member for Alghero. Is our representative in Alghero (Itlay): Thanks to his efforts a huge amount of content has been freed and we owe him the organization of many events in Alghero.
  11. Martorell is Amical's board member for the Valencian Country.
  12. Pere López is the most active contributor in WLM 2012 worldwide, with 8,833 photos of monuments;
  13. Enric Fontvila is the second most active contributor in WLM 2012 worldwide, with 7,828 photos.
  14. Toniher is a free software activist, a member of Softcatalà and contributor of Mozilla and MediaWiki.
  15. Some of the most active contributors in WMF projects in Catalan.
  16. Most of sysops and Bureaucrats of WMF projects in Catalan.
    • In which communities are they active in?
  1. Catalan Wikipedia (mostly)
  2. Wikimedia Commons (significantly)
  3. Viquinotícies (Catalan Wikinews)
  4. Viquidites (Catalan Wikiquote)
  5. Viquitext (Catalan Wikisource)
  6. Viccionari (Catalan Wiktionary)
And some members are also active in:
  1. English Wikipedia
  2. Spanish Wikipedia
  3. Meta
  4. Translatewiki
  5. MediaWiki
  6. Semantic MediaWiki
  • Where have you publicised your organization to gather members? Have you done outreach throughout the projects to recruit interested people?
Amical was created by some of the most active members of the Catalan Wikipedia editor's community, after an in person meeting back in 2008, and after a decision that was made by the community itself. Therefore, one of the major efforts of our association is to find not only new members for the association but new editors who'd like to join the community, mainly among people who are not actually editing Wikipedia which might come from different social, professional, institutional, and educational sectors.
In order to achieve it, Amical organizes several outreach activities and publishes monthly reports at:
  1. Monthly reports (Catalan & English)
  2. We also publish our monthly report at the Catalan wiki village pump and Reports in meta
  3. We also use Village Pump and project main pages (mainly in Catalan) to inform or ask for collaboration for specific projects.
  4. Amical is also promoting an alliance among Free knowledge and Free culture Catalan associations, promoting meetings and contacts with local communities of Mozilla, Ubuntu, sofcatalà, guifi.net, latele and several others.
Do you plan to do outreach throughout the projects (eg. other language Wikipedias)? Also, there have been no activity reports for the last seven months from what we can tell, is this correct? If so, why?
As our mission says, "Our mission and goal is that the sum of all human knowledge will be also available in Catalan and that all knowledge about Catalan culture will be also available in every language." Most of our members are mainly active in Catalan wiki, but no only in Catalan wiki. We will be happy to get in touch with editors of Catalan topics on other languages or projects.
Regarding the reports, at the moment they are avaliable and updated in Catalan here. We are now translating them to English and hopefully we will have them in 4-5 days.--Kippelboy (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the mission, or "thematic focus" of your organization?
Its focus of interest is Catalan language and Catalan culture.
Its primary mission and goal is that the sum of all human knowledge will be also available in Catalan and that all knowledge about Catalan culture will be also available in every language.
Note: The fact that these are the priority objectives does not imply that they are the only ones nor that it excludes others whenever they are lined up with the creation and the diffusion of free knowledge.
  • Could you give a short overview of the history of your organization up to now?
The association was formally created in 2009, as a provisional situation while we where pending the negotiation of some form of official recognition with WMF that could lead to change the bylaws or to dissolve it and create a new one. Amical Viquipèdia is currently registered only in Catalonia according to the Catalan Civil Code (Bylaws in English).
The Wikimedia CAT proposal has evolved over time. The first proposal of Wikimedia CAT wanted to establish a Wikimedia Local Chapter in the Catalan-speaking territories. This proposal did not receive the favorable recommendation of ChapCom because it was occupying a territory that encompassed several sovereign states and overlaped with already existing Chapters. Second proposal was about configuring Wikimedia CAT as a Local National Sub Chapter reducing the territory only to Spain's Catalan speaking regions. This alternative aimed and asked for comments from members of the Board of WMF but only got clear support from Jimmy Wales. Since then, Amical Viquipèdia has tried their best to fit into some of the new models that the Wikimedia Foundation Movements roles commetee has been thinking about during lasts months.The current wording adapts the recent proposal to the new model lately approved by WMF Board, called "Thematic Wikimedia Organization". Wikimedia CAT proposal has received broad support from over 500 wikimedians and several local organizations.
Formally, Amical association has a president and a board of trustees who are the spokespersons and legal representatives but the association is governed directly by the General Assembly. Every decision is taken by creating a page in our wiki where all members can vote. This is an old traditional system for many Catalan associations, some with more than hundred years history and thousands of members.
Since 2011 Amical is one of the 67 organizations recognized by the Government of Catalonia as organizations that officially promotes the Catalan language. So, among other benefits, residents of Catalonia have the right to be granted a 15% tax deduction on donations made to Amical.
Amical has been very active over the last three years, establishing a network of collaborative relationships between the editor's community and several institutions in its area of influence. We have established agreements, collaboration agreements or sponsorship with several degrees of the Public Administration. From state governments (Government of Andorra), Euro-regions (Mediterranean Pyrenees) regional/autonomies' (Government of Catalonia and the Balearic Government) and cities (City of Alghero - Italy - Barcelona, Palafrugell, Berga, Vilanova - Catalonia, Spain - , City of Perpignan - France -). With whom they have worked on projects around heritage (Wiki loves monuments), education (Wikischools, Viquiescoles, WikiArs), GLAM-wiki, elder people and culture.
The association has now 1 full time employee (Àlex Hinojo, Kippelboy). The members of the board and the president are not remunerated. Some scolarships have been awarded to develope projects.
  • Could you give us a short overview of the most recent (eg last 6 months) activities the association has done?
The past few months have been important for the association because we have been active in several areas. It has also been important for the impact of our activities to the media and the public recognition that we have received.
Education: We brought forward 3 large projects covering several centers:
  1. A 2nd edition of Viquiescoles with 15 schools and highscools participating.
  2. In the area of ​​engineering university in the 3rd edition of Viquifabricació, an educational project and competition which involved some universities, around 100 students and professors who have written several articles both in Catalan and Spanish Wikipedia.
  3. In art schools we started wikiArS where two art schools and 8 students where doing internships in partnership creating images and illustrations that later where uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.
  4. We are also implementing Wikipedia workshops in several universities all around Catalan speaking areas, from Perpignan to Valencia.
GLAM: The past few months have been very active, many collaborations have been established and had many outreach activities. The GLAM director staff position has allowed us to improve our projects and find new partners. We had 2 Wikipedians in Residence (MNAC museum & Palafrugell municipality). We have projects and agreements with more than 25 museums, started a project with the whole network of Public libraries of Catalonia and done several editat-thons. You can read more of our GLAMwiki projects here in English and here in Catalan.
Wiki Loves Monuments We had our local contest for WLM 2012.
Outreach and awards we had done several Wikipedia workshops and presentations. See our monthly reports. We were awarded with the Pompeu Fabra award by the Government of Catalonia for our contribution to global spread of Catalan language.
  • What kind of activities are planned for the future in the organisation?
Research: Amical is promoting the development of Wikipedia research and related topics. In this regard, we developed over the years activities in Universities to research possible new users, and are actually currently engaged with partnership with University and research centers. At the moment, Amical is collaborating with a research project on Active Aging, and about Peer production developed by the Institute of Government and Public Policies (Autonomous University of Catalonia), and in collaboration with the Berkman Center for Internet and Society (Harvard University); and, a research on the use of Wikipedia by academics developed by Open University of Catalonia. Additionally, Amical Viquipedia develops an anual survey among the Catalan Wikipedians community.
These research activities sound fascinating! Are there any links available for more info on the university partnerships?
Yes, you can read more detailed info and likns here: Associació Amical Viquipèdia/Research--Kippelboy (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


Education: Expanding both Viquiescoles, Wikiars and Viquifabriació and develope a Catalan Modernisme project with a research department of the University of Barcelona, where more than 100 students are now improving >100 Wikipedia articles about Catalan Modernisme in Catalan wiki. We are also starting a project with our National Archives Agency and an Archists degree of the Autonomous University of Barcelona.
GLAM Improving our relationship with museums, implementing the collaboration with the network of libraries and starting new collaboration with some Archives in Catalonia. We also plan to start some projects with science communities and historical societies.
Outreach we will keep on doing outreach as much as possible, to bring new editors to the community and spread the WMF projects and Catalan culture in our areas of influence.
  • What are the working languages of your organization? Is it mandatory to use Catalan in the association? Does the organisation accept members that do not speak Catalan, but still wish to promote its culture? How have you dealt with such situations?
The main working language is Catalan. It is not mandatory to use Catalan in the Association and is not a requirement understanding it to join the Association. Although, to fully participate in the coordination areas (mail list, internal wiki) is important to understand it, even if one use another language to participate. There are people who can act as mediators, translators and facilitators for people who do not understand Catalan. Understanding Catalan is not a requirement to join them. Some of actual Amical's members have other native languages ​​(Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch...) but they write or understand Catalan.
  • Do you have an overview of how many Wikimedians would like to join when founded as a Thematic Org?
In addition to the actual members of Amical, a broad community of Viquipèdia editors who are not Amical member supports us. Actually 377 userpages have a Wikimedia CAT support badge at their userpage to identify themselves. Also, as mentioned before, we have received support from over 500 wikimedians from all around the world.
Although we know that many of those who have signed or have a badge may not become members, we understand that our growing will be similar to other Wikimedia-related associations. It could be that the official recognition from the WMF could create a temporary pike of new members. Recognition can also give us more visibility and facilitate contacts with a wider community.
  • Are the bylaws currently in Meta the ones currently used in your association? Without changes?
Yes. You can read them in English.
  • Have the bylaws been reviewed by a lawyer/specialist?

Yes. Actual bylaws are registered according to the Catalan Civil Code (This means that the bylaws complies Catalan, Spanish and European Community legislation).

  • Do you only accept Wiki/p/m/edia editors, or also non-editors?
Anyone can become a member of the association but the procedures to be accepted vary:
  1. Wikimedians who made over 100 positive edits on Catalan projects are automatically accepted.
  2. For wikimedians who made over 100 positive edits on other language projects, having edits related to Catalan culture are taken in consideration (50 is a reference) and they are also automatically accepted.
  3. Non Wikimedians they have to go through a process as follows, they have to attend a meeting where the values of the wikimedia movement are explained, they need the endorsement of two members, and must pass a trial period of 3 months then a vote of the assembly is needed. There is no written rule, but the consensus is that non wikipedian members mus be a maximum of 1/3 of the total.
  • How do you see the relationship and overlap between the thematic organization and the online wikiproject(s) that deal with the Catalan language and culture in the different Wikipedias? For example, do you think the thematic organization has a role in editorial decisions on the online content?
Publishing and editorial decisions are based and managed by each Wikipedia editors community and decided by consenus. Amical wont have no control over Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation projects. Amical won't play any kind of role in any editorial decissions. Amical members may take part in projects related to Catalan language and culture, but always acting as wikimedians, not as delegates of the association.

You mean won't have control, we take it. :)

  • "Amical will gradually incorporate offices or delegations in different other parts of the world." Could you please expand on this?
Potentially , there are existing organizations and communities that possibly could help to spread our projects in several cities all around the world:
  1. Catalan Wikipedia editors living out of Catalan speaking areas.
  2. Communities of Catalan residents in different countries (there are some groups in countries and cities of Latin America, the British Isles, the United States and some Asian countries)
  3. Catalan Communities Abroad and Casals Catalans are organizations that are formally established to promote Catalan culture in different cities. See the list here
  4. Assistantships and departments of education in Catalan language and culture in different universities around the world.
  5. Sectors of the Academia, cultural sector and artistic movements interested in Catalan culture.
Also through some Catalan institutions could promote the presence of the Thematic organization, such as the Institut Ramon Llull (formed by the autonomous government of Catalonia and the Balearic Islands)... The recognition of the Thematic organization would facilitate the establishment of these kind of agreements and collaborations.
However, this global view is now only a whishlit. Although people from all over the world can join the association, the activities and infrastructure are focused in the Catalan language and culture geographic area. It is :Andorra, Alghero, Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Pyrénées-Orientales, Valencia, Western Strip or Franja, and Carche.
  • Naming

Thank you for the very detailed answers to our questions! We have a few more, inline and here. :) As you may know, the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation has produced some thoughts on the naming of thematic organisations. We would like to know what would be acceptable to you, remain as Associació Amical Viquipedia, or use an alternative? If so, which alternatives would you consider? (Feel free to provide as many as you wish). Thanks.

The resolution adopted by the Board established the name and use of the marks of the Partner Organizations exactly the same as the one for Chapters resolution link here. Given Geoffbrigham's and other's precautions discussed above, we believe that in both -chapters and partner organizations- is preferable to distinguish the legal name and the one used in the activities:
We believe that the legal name in no case should contain any WMF trademark. However the name used in the activities, while the Partner Organisation Chapter contract is valid, shall be one that ties clearly to Wikimedia.
The best way to link to Wikimedia is naming clearly Wikimedia + geography in the case of chapters and Wikimedia + theme in the case of Partner Organizations. This system clearly identifies the members of the Wikimedia environment and allows improve synergies related to brands.
Regarding the litigation, any name that clearly ties to Wikimedia -as set by the Board's resolution- has a risk. But we think that the Board was correct in this decision because the image of a set of sister organizations can only exist if the names are consistent with each other.
In our particular case our proposal is that we:
  • Legal Name of the entity: Amical Viquipèdia
  • Official name of the Parner Organization: Wikimedia CAT
Just add that CAT is the TLD for the Catalan language and culture and this allows many concepts in a compact and clear short term fully understood by our community. It also allows use of the domain name Wikimedia.cat. The fact of using Wikimedia and not Wikipedia seems obvious given that the activities are not limited to this single project.--Kippelboy (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Just for the sake of clarity, would you consider something that includes the word "Wikimedia" but is more than two words long? –Bence (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
In the same way (Just for the sake of clarity), what is your idea?, Would you want to suggest something about the name?--Mafoso (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow up[edit]

While the naming issue is being resolved, we are going to start reviewing your bylaws. Also, friendly reminder, please post your translated activity reports for the last 7 months? Thanks in advance. Raystorm (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Activity reports: Translated. Done! :)--Kippelboy (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Amical letter to AffCom 1-2013[edit]

Dear members of the Affiliations Committee and the WMF Board;

We the Amical Viquipèdia members, together with those who call for the recognition of Wikimedia CAT and a significant part of Catalan-speaking participants in Wikimedia projects, are tired, frustrated, vexed and, in some cases, downright exasperated at the neglectful and disdainful way Wikimedia conducts its dealings with us.

We have spent the last five years looking for ways to become affiliated to the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement. In 2008, we set up an association to support and promote Wikipedia and open knowledge. In January 2009, we outlined our proposal for a Wikimedia CAT chapter, which we presented to the Chapters Committee in October of the same year so that the ChapCom could make a recommendation to the WMF Board. A great deal of chapters were developed and approved in 2009; by the end of the year, there were 27 of them. Wikimedia CAT received the support of more than 500 people but, after a seven-month wait, the ChapCom issued a negative recommendation in May 2010. We have since intensified our efforts by developing several activities and projects to support and engage the editor community, as well as collaborating with various organisations and institutions in the Catalan-speaking world. A further eight chapters have been recognised in the intervening period, whereas we have been excluded and sidelined from various formal forums and meetings of the Wikimedia chapters.

The movement roles initiative was then launched and we participated in it, trying to do our bit and explaining our experience and situation while remaining open to several solutions. As a result, several new types of Wikimedia organisations were finally approved in March 2012. In April, we submitted an official new proposal for Wikimedia CAT to the Affiliations Committee, this time as a Wikimedia Thematic Organisation, so that it could make its recommendation to the Board of WMF.

History is repeating itself. It has been nine months already. Does the Affiliations Committee really need more time to give us an answer? For how long are we supposed to wait? Indefinitely? Forever, perhaps? A timetable is needed to guarantee a response within a reasonable time. To us, it looks like the Committee is simply stalling for time and trying to kick our application into the long grass.

We request that you treat us as equal partners working towards the same goals. We are not a newly-created organisation. We have spent five years working hard within the Wikimedia movement without as much as official recognition. We fulfil the requirements to be a Wikimedia Thematic Organisation.

Do we have to wait for each and every issue on the 'thorg concept' to be solved before getting a formal relationship with WMF? Now we are debating the subject of names, what will be next? Our proposed name is Wikimedia CAT. If necessary we can add a slogan or descriptor. If you have another proposal, tell us and we will study it, but you cannot keep us on tenterhooks for any longer. How many thorgs will be recognised before Wikimedia CAT is? Or there is no intention to ever recognise it?

We feel that we are part of a movement whose organisations and institutions are constantly throwing spanners in our works instead of warming up to our enthusiasm to work together.

Please give us a positive answer before the end of February, as we are waiting for your response to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting in early March to determine whether there is any point in continuing our efforts to find ways to become affiliated to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thanks,

Members of Amical Viquipèdia [letter approved 1/31/2013]

Posted by --Kippelboy (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to provide a detailed account of events.
Between the 3rd and 5th April Joan Gomà applied as a liason of the Amical group to become a Thorg, and received the explanation that Chapcom had to transition into AffCom first. This transition did not happen until August 20th, when the Wikimedia Foundation Board approved the name and charter of the Affiliations Committee. After that, on August 26th AffCom celebrated an internal meeting to finalise the requirements, guidelines and creation guide for Thematic Organisations. On September 2nd, AffCom contacted Amical via email to Joan Gomà, and posted questions on the Meta page. No response was received for more than a month, so on October 13th Affcom poked again Amical liason (Joan Gomà) by email, to at least receive some acknowledgement of the process. Again, no response was received for nearly a month. As a solution, AffCom contacted a staff member of Amical, Àlex Hinojo, to resucitate the application. He replied the same day, and became the new liason for the group, since the previous one was no longer available, and confirmed our questions would be answered as soon as possible. On November 9th, Geoff Brighman, General Counsel of WMF, posted his thoughts on the naming of thorgs on meta. On November 11th, Amical posted its replies on Meta. AffCom acknowledged this via email the same day, and replied to the meta comments on November 17th, with further comments and including the naming issue and a link to the discussion on the topic. On November 21st, Amical replied on Meta, and Affcom acknowledged it via email the same day. Since the naming discussion was still ongoing, to keep the application moving forward, bylaw review would start. On December 23rd, AffCom liason forwarded the Amical liason Geoff's email to Wikimedia-l on his thoughts about the naming of thorgs. This was acknowledged by the Amical liason. Meanwhile, the Affcom open call for elections takes place, a process that will not conclude until February. On January 18, Affcom emailed the Amical liason updating the group of the current status, and again asking for their considerations on the naming issue. On January 22nd, Affcom liason forwarded to the Amical liason the Wikimedia-l email regarding the Legal Office Hours which included in one of its points the Naming of Thorgs. This was acknowledged by the Amical liason.
The Committee has gone above and beyond the call of duty when the first Amical liason stopped responding for several months, and has tried to keep a very up-to-date relationship with the group, and tried to repeatedly engage it in the discussion on the naming of affiliates. This can and has also been oversighted by both WMF Board members and WMF staff which liason with the Committee and see its day-to-day functioning.
Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
«Bureaucracies always prefer to pay attention to the procedures and discipline rather than the underlying problems. The first are resolved by authoritarianism, the latter require ideas, ability of conviction and authority» (Josep Ramoneda, Buròcrates i turistes, 30/1/2013. Diari Ara). I'm sure you have beyond your duty but I am even more convinced that the people who make Amical have overcome this duty vastly. While you resucitate the application, the deceased was doing work. The bureaucratic work is often tedious and little recognition. But at least you are recognized us not.--Mafoso (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Every group has to undergo a process in order to achieve recognition from the WMF. This includes answering Affcom's questions, which Amical failed to do for quite some time. Yet AffCom persisted in trying to make contact, and succeeded. Everyone is a volunteer and everyone is busy helping the movement and there is room for improvement always, but without answering questions the process stalls. There is a community debate sparked by the Legal department of the WMF on the naming of thematic organisations that has been widely publicised, and Amical was made aware of it. Now, AffCom can offer alternatives like it was asked above, but Amical needs to engage too. Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


We wrote our letter & agreed between the Amical members and voted and approved before sending it to you. For us, it has been a very special message and step forward, maybe into the unknown, so please give it the importance that we have inherited. The community is pretty worn out and we all want to find a solution for our particular case. The aim of our letter was to Convey the feeling of Accumulated frustration from our community and ask for a prompt resolution. Seeking for this:
  1. Name: as said, our proposal is just Wikimedia CAT. There is a problem with it? If there is no problem, let's just move forward. If Wikimedia CAT naming is a problem for you, please provide your options. We do not want to join a general discussion about naming future thorgs, we believe that we have already spent a lot of energy in such discussions.
  2. Bylaws: We will try to respond your last questions about our bylaws as soon as possible, but maybe we need to do some legal request to our lawyers first. We will keep you up to date. We suppose that there are no more question related to the exposed part of the bylaws. If so please let us know them so we can respond to them it all together.
  3. Apart from these two aspects (name & bylaws questions) is there another open issue pending to be resolved before going ahead with the recommendation?
  4. Our next AGM will be on the begining of March & we would like to make a final decision regarding to keep aiming our will to being fomally involved with the Wikimedia Foundation or just quitting it and going by ourselves. This is why we need some official response by the Affcom before our meeting and why we sent you that letter. As you may understand: It is a very special moment, but community wants to make a final decission ASAP.--Kippelboy (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand you may feel overworn after so many years, but this process with AffCom really started last November 11 with the first replies to the questions posted above on September 2. I really wish to encourage you here: the community has done a huge effort with the creation of the new models last year precisely for cases like Amical, and the interaction between Affcom and Amical has been going really well to date. With regards to the name, you really need to engage in the community discussion to understand the current concerns with the names of thorgs. The WMF Legal Counsel has also made himself very available to discuss with groups both concerns and alternatives. Nonetheless, I have contacted him this morning with your case, so it can be tackled asap. It is not a matter of a name acceptable to Affcom, it is a matter of a name acceptable both to Amical and WMF. Which is why it is so important that Amical starts engaging in the discussion soon. From what the User Groups have been negotiating with the WMF, it is highly possible that in your case the use of a tagline will be required at the very least, but I am not a lawyer and this you should take only as a possibility, not a certainty, until we get feedback on the criteria for naming thematic orgs. Reconsider providing your input so the process can happen faster.
As for the bylaws, let me explain the process: what should happen is that you now consult (certainly!) with your legal experts, and come back to us with the replies to our comments. We will then comment those replies with you, as in, a dialogue. Now, if AffCom does require changes in the bylaws, those would have to be approved by your GA, correct? In that regard, it could prove very convenient that your GA is going to take place soon. You would in that case then notify us when the bylaws have been changed, and AffCom would then make a recommendation to the WMF Board, who ultimately has the last word on the recognition of affiliates. If, however, AffCom does not require changes, there would be no need to wait for your GA, obviously. The fact that you are an incorporated entity (as opposed to new groups seeking recognition) is what could prove more bureaucratic in the bylaw part of the process, but hopefully not too much. This, highly summarized, is the process all groups undergo. Once the naming and the bylaws review are concluded to the satisfaction of all parties, the process will conclude, and the WMF will decide on the recognition of the group. Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Bylaws[edit]

Please find below some questions regarding the bylaws. Some arise from translation problems, so clarifications are requested. Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm Salvador, AffComm member. I'll make too some suggestions and remarks to your Bylaws. Salvador alc (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Carlos, AffCom member. I'm also suggesting some adjustments to your Bylaws. --Maor X (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Article 2.2.1 In preamble you speak about to support Wikipedia and "sister projects" as in this article you focused your aims only in Viquipèdia. Since this article stipulate your legal limits, would it be advisable make it clear. Salvador alc (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This set the goals and a list of activities to achieve them. The list of activities is a at point 8 is wide enough not to set legal limits. The association can do any other unexpected activity if it serves to achieve the goals. The purpose of the list is to qualify the association for certain public grants, and relations with the government, it is required to explicitly mention these kind of activities on our bylaws if we want to claim for certain public grants.--Kippelboy (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. I refer to extend your aims to the sister projects in article 2, explicitly. Salvador (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not an extension because they are included in the current wording. We don't mention Viquipèdia in our Aims (2.1.), we talk about activities. We have no problem in adding more activities that are consistent with the Aims. If you want to, please propose a specifical writing and we will add it.--Kippelboy (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
No, the matter is that I don't "want" but I suggest. And yes, these are "activities" but not only, because we are reviewing ByLaws and in any way those have been called are the legal "aims" of the future non-profit association. You don't need my wording, because you have it a perfect one in preamble. However, my commentary was only an advice, if you don't want take it, then is OK for me. :) Salvador (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Article 7.2 How much mensual or annual fees are needed for kick a member out? With current wording, sounds like with two due fees is good reason to make it. Salvador alc (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, When becoming a member you already know it --Kippelboy (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
note: the fees are annual (exemption from payment is provided). --Mafoso (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, provided that is clear for you and your members. Salvador (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Article 11.2 I suppose that, even in case of videoconferences, all communications during Assembly will be written in the minutes. Salvador alc (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Catalan law provides that assemblies can be done by electronic means and this is outlined in our bylaws. The requirements for recording the meeting are exactly the same as in on person meetings. The secretary takes notes and writes the minutes. The only thing different is the location of the meeting. In an Electronically assembly every attendee is a different place, and that "place" has legal consequences, and therefore the Catalan law provides that in case of a telematic assembly, legal place of the meeting is where the president is physically placed.--Kippelboy (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. Salvador (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Article 12.2 I know that in spanish laws are allowed digital notifications by email. If that's correct, would be useful apply them for call to Assembly in preference to "letters" Salvador alc (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In fact we have always notified assemblies telematically, and any single member has ever contested. Maybe worth to change the wording of this point in the statutes to prevent any member may challenge the summons. Or maybe better leaving it as it is, at the risk and ensuring that if one member contest the notification, we should cancel it and re-convene it sending traditional writing letters by postal mails.--Kippelboy (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Then, you should take a choice. :) Salvador (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Article 13.1: No first call/second call distinction. Is this correct? Haven't you found any problems with this arrangement?
    • Yes, is correct and no, there is no problem. Before the official announcement of the assembly meeting dates and times are discussed and agreed between the member via our internal Wiki pages and at the Amical's mailing list. We rely on a working consensus.
    • Legal aspects: Catalan law of associations (Article 13-4) leaves the possibility of defining a first and second edition of the statutes or of not doing so.
    • Legal aspects (II): Spanish Law of Associations (Article 12-c) do not defines this aspect.
I see. So, this means if the meeting is set at 9 am, and only five people have arrived for X reason, the meeting starts anyway? Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It could happen. But we are Mediterranean and wikimedians, if at 9 is not enough people, we went to take a coffee and hope to others. In the pages of call of Assembly we ask to confirm attendance in order to be aware of those who attend. The General Assembly usually formalize previously discussed issues and place new ideas to start a debate towards new projects.--Mafoso (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I support Raystorm comment. So, even after this hypothetical coffee brake, however confirmation, nobody comes to Assembly? Salvador alc (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In practice, we have never had these kind of problems. Indeed, if when the assembly starts there are a few representatives, we can wait few minutes before starting, showing or courtesy. But this is optional if all participants agree. Otherwise, the meeting starts on time. In organizations with two calls, in practice just feel like you only take one. Everyone gets to the second one and late.--Kippelboy (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
In big associations, this is fairly true. People tend to show for the second call directly. If you haven't found problems with your current arrangement, I see no point in changing it for the moment. When you have 1000 members it can be revisited again. :) Raystorm (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Idem. Salvador (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Article 13.2: "The assembly only can adopt agreements with respect to the points included in the agenda, except that it has been constituted with universal character (100% of the members meet) or that the agreements refer to the call of a new general assembly." This requires items to be put on the agenda /before/ the meeting, correct?
    • Correct. Prior to an assembly call we open a debate towards the points to treat at the assembly which is open to all members.
    • Legal Aspects: Catalan law of associations (Article 13-5 states that if the association bylwas do not define it, 3/4 of the attendees may include an item on the agenda. Our bylaws reais this reatio up to 100% of the attendees, for being respectful for the people thay may have not come knowing the agenda and also in order to facilitate consensus.
    • Spanish Law of Associations (Article 7-1-h) only requires that the bylaws regulate it.
      • Good, thank you for clearing it up. We thought it meant that, just wanted to be sure. Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 14.3: only a 50% majority for changing bylaws etc? Seems rather low. We'd recommend to increase this a bit, especially considering that you have little other thresholds for such changes. Not a dealbreaker, but a serious concern for the long term health. If you plan to change anything in the near future, we'd suggest to take this too. With no quorum, this is not a very high threshold.
    • Comment: Qualified majority determined on our laws is more than half, equivalent to an absolute majority (at least half + 1), not the half. We do not agree on increasing it. If members consider that a point on the agenda is important enough, they can physically attend the meeting or vote electronically. If they do not attend they give confidence to the ones that are attending. Wiki style. We are not interested in an association that is blocked by non-active members who do not attend the meetings and avoid the association having a quorum. We do want a democratic and dynamic association. Any scheduled assembly topic requires the same majority to change it than to keep it as it is before the meeting. We want to reward stagnation and status quo. If we follow your recommendations on this point -for example- right now we probably couldn't make any of changes that you actually propose, only if a minority of members would opposed to it.
    • Legal aspects: Catalan law of associations (Article 14-1) allows the bylaws to define whether or not a qualified majority is needed to some kind of agreement, but provides a simple majority (more votes in favor than against). with our statement (more than half of votes) we're actually going higher than what the law requires.
    • Legal aspects:Spanish Law (Article 12-d) establishes a qualified majority (only if any other option is not displayed at the association's bylaws).
      • Not a dealbreaker for me. (But if you had a quorum for meetings on the people who attended, with the first/second call practice, you would avoid the potential bad effects of inactive members, so decisions would be taken by those attending the GA, while at the same time making sure that your bylaws would only be changed with major support of members.) Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
What you say is correct but it is not what we want. We wish that our bylaws are easy to modify.--Kippelboy (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh. Why? (To clarify: Most, if not all, groups want and need bylaws difficult to modify, so changes only happen when a very high proportion of the members agree. That is to prevent too many changes in a short time in the main document of the association, and to prevent possible takeovers by interest groups as time passes.) Raystorm (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
For many reasons. Among others:
1. For democratic reasons. The association is governed by the actual will of members. Not for the old will of the members.
2. For reasons of speed and dynamism. The change can not be penalized. Change should be just as easy (or difficult) as maintaining the status quo.
3. For practical reasons. In cases where it is necessary to amend the bylaws (For example if the Affcom request it), which we had planned from the beginning. It is interesting that the process is not slowed by problems of quorum in cases where changes are unimportant and with no opposition, but arouse little interest among members to attend the meeting.
It is absurd to try to prevent a possible "takeover" by interest groups just adding difficulty for changing the status, because then it facilitates the maintenance of "the ones in charge" that hold control at a particular time. If there is a "takeover" or a hostile attempt for "mantaining control" members of the Association only have to mobilize and attend the next meeting to avoid it, in any of two mentioned cases.--Kippelboy (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 15: It is unclear to us whether the positions inside the board (treasurer, secretary, president) are elected by the members, or by the board itself. Again no deal breaker, but would be nice to see it clarified.
    • All the functions that have been not delegated to the board within the bylaws, relate to the assembly. As in this case.
    • Legal Aspects: Neither the Catalan law associations (Article 18-1 and 18-2), nor Spanish law (Article 7-1-h) determine that the charges to the governing body or representation ("Board "in our case) must be chosen by members elected themselves or by assembly, nor they determine that there is any compulsory charges to exist within the board. Our bylaws define that there are three positions (treasurer, secretary, president) as well as some vocals. The two laws (article 12-1-j of the Catalan law and Article 11-3 of the Spanish one) determine that the Assembly is the supreme and apart of its regular functions it is also undeniable to all of these functions that may not have been corresponded or assigned to any other body. Our bylaws Article 10-j himself says exactly the same.
      • Yes, but the question is, when the Board is elected, are those positions chosen within the Board, or when they run as candidates they already say what positions they will hold, so the members know already for what posts they are voting them for? Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree with Raystorm, I think the rules of elections (times, procedures, electors, candidacies) are slightly unclear. Salvador alc (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
        • The positions of the board must be an agreement between the candidates and the assembly. When there are elections every candidate is running the board and the assembly elects. When you're elected board members if they wish to change their positions proposed in the assembly and the assembly decided.--Kippelboy (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure I understand the "agreement between candidates and GA" part? Do candidates run in closed/open lists, with preferred positions to hold in the Board so the GA knows it in advance when voting? Do candidates run individually, and then are elected by the GA as board members, and after that the GA chooses them for the positions of Chair, Treasurer,etc? Is it in that case a two-part process for the GA (first board members, then positions)? Do successful candidates get to make a pitch about their preferred positions before the GA decides about it in a vote? That's the process we're asking about. We understand future changes within the Board must be approved by the GA, it's the first initial placing of those positions we're asking about. :) Raystorm (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
None of this. Amical opens a discussion using our internal wiki and mailing list, where candidates and positions are openly discussed. The formal vote at the meeting is just to legalize the previous consensus. Our experience is that the candidates do not apply unless we have previously encouraged them to do it and they see & realize that they have the support of the community.--Kippelboy (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 16.1: 5 years, wow that is long! Are there any measures in place to reduce the effective term? We would be in favor to reducing the effective terms to at most 3 years, to ensure better accountability. No dealbreaker though.
    • The assembly can change it at anytime. 5 years is the custom time-scenario to avoid bureaucracy, because every time the term expires you must register the charges to the government's official record even if they are re-elected. We have no problem on reducing the term.
    • Legal aspects: Neither the Catalan or Spanish law set a time limit for renewal charges, they only set a maximums time for communication of renewed charges.
      • No dealbreaker, but if you are in favour, shorter terms help ensure better accountability. Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Over that time, the transparency ensure better accountability. The accounting of Amical is available to all members, there is a group of pages dedicated to our internal wiki and properly updated, any request for information from a member is taken quickly. In addition to the treasurer and other board members, interested members are part of what we call economics team where, among other things, take care that this information is as clear as possible for our fellow.--Mafoso (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Accountability :) Raystorm (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Ops ... False Friend :) ...--Mafoso (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
              • The question of the terms of office is a very long and complex discussion. Longer term system allows the Board to consider long-term strategic plans and feel responsible for carrying them out. It also allows renewal of half of the members of the middle term and maintain an overlap of experienced members and new members. In rich associations with important benefits for the position, this system has the drawback that it perpetuates board members for personal reasons. We are a poor association and there is no particular advantage in becoming board members. Our problem is just the contrary, to find volunteers to be a part of it. We have no line of people who want to join the board, nor members to cling to it.--Kippelboy (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


  • 14.4: Is this legal?
    • Yes. Regarding with the current Spanish Data Protection Act (authorization is needed for providing data)
    • Also according to Article 14-1 states of the Catalan law formally presented applications are entitled to have a copy of the members list and their addresses, certified by the Secretary of the governing body. The illegal would be not providing it. It is a measure that guarantees democracy and equal opportunities for candidates.
      • Thank you. So the members are asked in elections time to authorise it, then? Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 17.11: Credit? We assume this refers to credit giving institutions (banks?) (institutions of credit or institutions of savings). Could you confirm?
    • Yes
  • 19: Can members attend these meetings?
    • Yes. Everything that is not forbidden is allowed.
      • Can they participate, or only observe? (In any case, it is a great practice!). Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Of course, they can participate. The only that they can not do is vote, because they are not members.--Kippelboy (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 20.1: "The Board of Trustees can delegate some of its faculties (...)" Perhaps, would be important to detail wich are faculties that can be delegated. I think that exist some sensitive issues whose delegation must be avoided, like financial ones. Salvador alc (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • This provision is necessary to streamline procedures. Especially in an organization like ours that is distributed throughout the territory. For example, if a partner wants to sign an agreement with someone in The Alguero or an institution of another one wants to sign with the Casal Català of Buenos Aires (Catalan culture house), the board has power to delegate the functions, to save money and time, so the president will not need to be traveling around the world. The board members are responsible for ensuring making a good use of this opportunity.--Kippelboy (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • This kind of provisions are comprensible regarding to most of faculties. Although in relation to financial faculties it sounds like a risk. I'm thinking in article 17.11, for example. But if you are aware of this, come on. Salvador (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Nota bene: Article 17.11 explains that procedures about opening bank accounts are in article 29 but in fact are in the 30. Salvador (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 22.2: There has to be a treasurer, right? So why does it say "if there is"? Also, how is this formalised. We're assuming this is supposed to say "if s/he is there" (if present). It might be that the president and treasurer were involved in the same car accident, and are not coming to the meeting or incapacitated for a while. But it doesn't hurt to check if this is really a translation mistake.
    • The requirement that the secretary must be does not necessarily says that the responsible will be actually be. For example he/she may have died and the association may still not have chosen another yet. The Article provides an environment of what happens in this particular case. Whether it is because the person failed to attend or because the association has actually no treasurer in a particular moment.
      • Okay with me. Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • In the event of absence or illness, the president is substituted, by the treasurer. Even though this situation would be temporary (if it ever happens), don't you think the secretary would hold way too much power within the organization? I suggest you should create the role of vice-president, which could be enabled to temporarily take the role of president in such a case and hence avoiding as much as possible the risk of giving one person so much responsibility. Please think about it. --Maor X (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 30: In current or saving accounts open in establishments of credit or saving it shall contain the signatures of the president, the treasurer and the secretary. To withdraw funds just one of the signatures will be required." - Is this permitted for NGOs? For a more transparent handling of the funds of the association, we'd recommend at least two signatures required jointly in the case of a withdrawal.
  • Yes. I know that cash availability is important to achieve the goals, but the security of your found is vital too. Salvador alc (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • 1) Yes. Allowed. 2) The joint firm has a problem, not all banks have telematic electronically joint signature. In our case, the president and secretary treasurer live in different towns. The combined firm would require continuous movement to sign withdrawals.--Kippelboy (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • In this particular and sensitive case (the use of funds by a single person) how will you ensure accountability and transparency? --Maor X (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Accountability and transparency are issues beyond our associations bylaws. In our area, this is regulated in their internal regulations and customs (reglaments). Besides, we must distinguish between "payments" of "use of funds". In our case, we have rules and practices that determine the projects and fund management. For example:
1- Any member may develop a project that meets the principles aligned with the aims of the association. You have no need to ask for permission, but must inform the mailing list of the Association before doing it, and if there is no opposition, you can proceed.
2- If the project requires funds, and funds raised by the association, we need to online vote (on our internal wiki). This vote is confirmed in the next association's meeting.
3- If the project requires funds, but the member itself can collect them, for example with crowd-funding, grants, etc. We only ask for a cautious forecast for the unexpected expenses.
4- In both cases, the person actually making the "payments" and the one who decides the "use of funds" are never the same. The member leading the project decides how funds are used and treasurer does payment. The President and the Secretary never do any payment. According to the bylaws, they can do it, but it is normal and fair that the treasurer do it. They will (President or Secretary) act only if the treasurer can not. Treasurer do not manage projects.--Kippelboy (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
5- Each and every one of the movements of the counts, all of our payments and incomes, are public for any single member of the association. Everyone can see our accountancy and appreciate if every single move is consistent with the activities taking place.
But none of this is part of our bylaws. It is really unusual, none of the associations that we have knowledge regulate this topics on their bylaws, they do it in their internal regulations. It is governed by internal rules adopted by the assembly, and practices that are established in our every day practice.--Kippelboy (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have knowledge of quite a few NGOs that have stated clearly in their bylaws who can manage the accounts and [some even] the combination of singatures linked to a limit (i.e.: President+Secretary up to US$200, President+Treasurer up to US$1,000, Secretary+Treasurer up to US$150, President+Treasurer+Secretary up to US$2,500) --Maor X (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 31: If problem is between member and board, how is that handled? board still decides? The article states "if the internal regulations establish the procedure for it, against the next General Assembly that meets." - We'd like to know if such procedure is indeed established.
    • The General Assembly is always sovereign. Everything that is not related to the bylaws delegate on the Assembly and even what is delegated on the bylaws delegate to the Assembly if she decides it so. So far we have not had any kind of 'issue among our members, if one day it happens the assembly will decide.
      • Okay with me (Although having to wait for the GA to solve member problems could prove a trying situation to those involved?) Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You would have to put a clause signalling independence from WMF, no content control, etc, to avoid potential liabilities. Preambles have no legal impact in Spain.
    • We have no problem on it. But we think that this is not only useless but harmful. An association is independent of any other entity in the world. We do not include on our bylaws that we are independent of all the long list of other organizations with which we collaborate. If we include the quote you recommend and one day we have some kind of problem, this quote could be interpreted as an indication that it is a ploy to create a fiction. Also we think is over-understood given the bylaws preamble and purpose.
      • Okay with me. I get what you say about focusing on trying to avoid implications of dependency, instead of trying to promote statements of independency. Legal implications are sometimes...baffling. Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Minor: More direct reference to thematic focus on Aims section (art.2)?
    • The association has a broader setting regarding free knowledge. Article 2 has a strong impact on what public subsidies can we ask for and which relations can the association have with several governments of different Catalan-speaking Countries. For example order 2 allows the association to be registered in the government of Catalonia Catalan organizations list that promote catalan, which allows us to receive grants from the government of Catalonia to promote the Catalan language. It also allows that the government of Andorra to grant the association. For example order 4 allows the governments of Catalonia and the Balearic Islands to recognize degrees issued by the association in the curricula of public teachers. The purpose 3 allows the association to receive grants related to the development of scientific research projects and technology development... Any changes to this article may be reviewed carefully by our lawyers. In general adding things should not be a problem but extracting some text may cause problems.
    • If Wikimedia recognizes the Association as a Thematic Organization does not mean that the association can not promote other activities of free knowledge that have nothing to do with Wikimedia or with the "Thematic focus". Yes, it is a requirement. No problem adding it. Tell us the wording. But if the requirement is to remove the other goals it would not be appropriate. The bylaws are just a legal agreement among the Association members. As an association we can/could do any project even if is not written on our bylaws, as far as there is no member who opposes frontally. The bylaws are just like a contract between the members of the assocaciation. They can be changed anytime there is a new agreement among the members.
      • I don't think the idea behind the comment was to suggest removing agreed-upon goals of the association. 2.3 could do the job of explaining the thematic focus, in my mind (promoting Catalan culture and language). One question: has the association been declared "De Utilidad Pública"? Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • We plan to do this but we still have not requested the declaration of public utility.--Kippelboy (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Any particular reason, or just the baffling bureaucracy standing in the way? :) Raystorm (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
baffling bureaucracy--Kippelboy (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 50+1 for GA to remove Board? Is this correct?
    • Yes--Kippelboy (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you. (As you know, the new members of AffCom have just joined the Committee, but I hope they will be able to come to comment here as soon as they get their bearings. I will poke them to let them know regardless). Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers. I think it would be preferable to comment them inline, should the need arise, to keep an order if nobody objects? Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


  • General Comment on the content of the questions: We infer that Affcom members have a different view of the bylaws that we have. Maybe we are wrong in that perception, but perhaps is worth commenting on some general principles of operation of our association:
  1. Our Association is based on the voluntary work of the members, not in the administration of funds. Is far more valuable and more important the work of our partners members than cash itself.
  2. All Amical members have access to all information. No privileges for access to information. The members of the board, treasurer, president, the ones developing projects, and the ones that only pay fees and are not very active ...we all have the same information as the others.
  3. Decisions are taken during internal discussions and votes on our mailing list and wiki. The board and the assembly are to formalize the decision, following legal requirements. But you can not replace reflection, deliberation, drafting proposals and making collective decisions made ​​during days on our internal mail-list or wiki, for a few hours of formal meeting.
  4. Not everything is planned, nor intended to. We are an association that is constantly building itself and growing, and we look for solutions when we meet both problems and opportunities.
  5. We do not have a hierarchy. The board and the positions are there because there is a legal imperative. The board members are required to represent the association and meet legal requirements, but have no power to command what is done or not done. Maybe they have a little more influence in the group, as they have earned the trust of members of the association.
  6. The association is a cooperative framework where members can collaborate to advance their projects freely seeking to foster free knowledge. Regulations and status must be adapted to achieve this style, maintaining legal requirements and accountability in the management of resources. But not the other way around.
  7. Amical has been built from the bottom up and we want to keep it that way. We want that new members can contribute by making changes and improvements with the same ease that we had to get to where we are today.--Kippelboy (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
    The point of the questions is to understand your bylaws, that is correct. Bylaws may differ widely from one place to another, and there will be things that might incite an explanation from an international audience, but it is necessary to make sure that the bylaws of orgs that seek recognition share basic tenets like open membership, accountability mechanisms, details on structure, and so forth. That is what we are trying to discern here, I hope this helps you understand the purpose of the questions. Ideals are fantastic, and we wouldn't be here if we all did not share them. Ascertaining the infrastructure behind them is what the review is all about. Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Amical is Legally registered Association, due to this the bylaws of the Association fulfill applicable law. Documents referred:

--Mafoso (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Recommendations from the Affiliations Committee[edit]

Hi, thank you for the answers provided above for the bylaws review. The Affiliations Committee recommends the following changes to your bylaws, which you can find below. Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Article 2.2.1: (Important) Put what is included in preamble about supporting Wikipedia and "sister projects" here too as in this article you focused your aims only in Viquipèdia. Since this article stipulates the legal limits, it would it be advisable to make it clear. We consider that an extensive aims wording is ever better than a limitative one. "Supporting free knowledge" would be a compatible mission, but we would be more comfortable if it was explained that under free knowledge, particular attention is pointed towards the Wikimedia projects.
Ok, Amical has agreed to change this paragraph to:
To support the coordination of "projects of free knowledge", hosted in the web "Viquipèdia" information source in encyclopedic format which is the fruit of the anonymous contribution of thousands of collaborators, and which tries to find, through consensus, a neutral point of view in its contents. Also, to support the rest of the Wikimedia projects, hosted in the Wikimedia websites, known as sister projectes: Viquillibres, Viquitext, Viquidites, Viccionari, Viquinoticies and similar proejcts that may be developed in the future.
  • Article 12.2 (Minor) We suggest you use digital notifications by email to call to Assembly in preference to "letters".
Ok, good idea. Amical has agreed to change this paragraph to:
The call has to be communicated fifteen days before the date of the meeting, communications must be done individually by e-mail and also to a distribution list in which all the associates must be subscribed.


  • 16.1: (Important) Reconsider shorter terms, even if people are re-elected. 2-3 years, instead of 5. (Perhaps the possibility of a shorter commitment would make more people interested to try themselves on the board.) (Fyi, The Compass Review suggests terms of 2 years, with a maximum of 3 terms.)
Ok, we agree. New paragraph:
The members of the Board of Trustees exercise the position during a period of two years, they can be re-elected.
  • 20.1: Detail what Board can delegate, esp. financially. Also, Art.17.11 explains that procedures about opening bank accounts are in article 29 but in fact are in 30.
Ok, new text:
The Board of Trustees can delegate some of its faculties in one or several commissions or working groups if it has the favorable vote of two thirds of the members. Board may not delegate the functions of withdrawing money from accounts.
  • 22.2. (Minor) Make the position of vice president explicit (not excluding it can be the same person as the secretary).
OK! New text:
In the event of absence or illness, the president is substituted, first by the oldest member of the board, who will hold the title of vice-president, second option by the treasurer -if there is- or third by the elder member of the Board, following this order.


  • 30: (Very important) Link withdrawal of funds to more than one person. Make access to organization funds require signatures from two people. Either double signatures, or elaborate explicitely in a General Assembly motion/decision how unauthorized access to movement funds is/would be prohibited.
Ok, new text:
In current or saving accounts open in establishments of credit or saving it shall contain the signatures of the president, the treasurer and the secretary. To withdraw funds two of the signatures will be required.--Kippelboy (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Do you have any relations with Wikimedia España or Wikimedia France (Pyrenees)? πr2 (t • c) 14:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Amical Viquipèdia is obviously willing to collaborate with similar organizations from the Wikimedia movement. In particular, we have participated together with Wikimedia France and Wikimedia España in the organization of Wiki Loves Monuments contest and, in fact, there are some members of Amical who are at the same time members of Wikimedia España or Wikimedia France.
One of the reasons we want the official recognition of the Thematic Organization is precisely to be able to participate in the regular communication channels that are available to chapters and other WMF organizations - this way we could improve our relationship with them.--Kippelboy (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

News[edit]

[2]. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I would only take issue (from an AffCom POV) on the 4 year negotiation part. AffCom as such was created last mid-August, and on early September Amical was contacted. In November there was a reply which started the process, and on March of this year the recommendations from AffCom were finally posted on this page. 4 months then. :-) (It might have gone faster, granted, but we're all volunteers after all.) Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated bylaws[edit]

Hello, I updated Amical bylaws according to the comments above. You can find them here, and the old ones here (diff). We will hopefully approve them during next AGM, May 11th, 2013.--Arnaugir (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Raystorm (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Recognition update[edit]

After a good discussion about the remaining issues in a meeting in Milan, and now that the bylaws were updated, AffCom published a recommendation to the Board to recognize Amical Wikimedia as a thematic org. The Board is discussing a resolution this week. Thank you to the members of Amical for your patience. SJ talk  02:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)