Talk:Wikimédia Magyarország/Bylaws

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

Feedback on By-laws[edit]

Being one of the members of ChapCom I below give my feedback on your proposed By-laws.

  • The general set-up is in accõrdance with what we are used to see, and I see no fundemantal problem with your proposal.
  • You state the purpose of the association to be to support Hungarian language (p 2.4, p3.6c, 3.6d). This is unacceptable. we want the chapter to support all living in a country (in your case Hungary) independant of what language they want to work in. Ie if you have people in Hungary who want to participate in the English version or other they must also be welcome. You can, if you want, stress the Hungarina language by stating Primary Hungarian language. You are also welcome to have people from outside Hungary to be members of your organisation.
  • For the membership part (II) I have several minor questions but beleive you internally will raise them anyway, like that you in p 4.7 not mention missing membership payment as a case for meberships to cease. I also in general feel that the detailed wordings are not as ready as we are used to when it comes to a formal final review, but expect that you will elaborate more before it is time for your formal application.

Anders Wennersten 10:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you on your feedback!

  • As we have stated before we do not plan to exclude anyone (we do not tie membership or being a board member to a Hungarian citizenship, 4§(2) and 6§(3)), we were following the examples of the Argentinian, Swiss, Polish and Italian chapters to have the local language (in our case Hungarian) supported. I have proposed to include the term especially to conform to your opinion and the wording of the bylaws of the mentioned chapters.
We are looking into ways to change the wording. Exclusion of any kind was non intentional, in article 2 paragraph (4) we already have primarily, in article 3 we intended point a) to represent all the other languages, and c) and d) to represent those spoken in Hungary. I will inform you of the wording we come up with to check if its okay with ChapCom. --Dami 13:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In case of §4 (7) I am of the opinion that membership does not cease immediately upon non-payment of membership fees. Those who not pay membership fees can be expelled by a resolution of the board §4 (9), based on a member not performing his duty to pay the fees (the obligation defined in 5§ (3), the fees defined in 9§ (7)g and 12§ a; note that the amount received from membership fees is left empty as it will remain unknown until the founding meeting). If a member is expelled for not paying his membership fees by a resolution of the Board it falls under case 4§ (7) b [expulsion of the member]. We would welcome your other questions as well.--Dami 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Just a note on this last point: Out of practical experience, you might want to consider a specific approach for members who shall lose membership for non-payment of fees: The german chapter has a provision in place where a membership automatically ends if a member has not paid (or explained his non-payment) three months after the second written reminder to pay. This "cancellation of membership" then becomes an administrative act which can be done by the secretary, it does not require the quasi-judicial and rather formal expulsion process and vote by the board anymore. For some reason, this became lost when we (Wikimedia Switzerland) adapted our bylaws from the German ones and we deeply regret this now, we had to do a full-scale expulsion procedure with written notification, statutary time provisions, request to provide a statement by the member, formal board vote with 2/3 majority etc. in the case of members who did not pay and whom we were unable to contact anymore (change of address without telling us). You will, inevitably, have members who do not pay, and it's easier if you have such a simple administrative procedure and reserve the normal expulsion provision for the "serious cases", in which a member acts against the interests of the association. (Note: This is just a recommendation, in the end, I don't think that it is crucial to ChapCom how you handle this and you can certainly become an official chapter without changing this...) Regards, --Mbimmler 12:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. We've been informed that Hungarian court practice does not allow the automatic expulsion of members just because they do not pay their membership fees; a resolution is needed to expel a member. Your suggestion would make things easier, but would be a red flag to the court during our registration. Best regards, --Dami 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


We have changed the activities because of the concerns expressed, please check if its in line with your concept. Thanks --Dami 10:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. .6c and 3.6d now looks OK for me. I still find 2.4 unclear Anders Wennersten 05:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe 2.4 might be an issue of the translation or the English word order:
2.4 means that we primarily (not exclusively) support free content in the Hungarian language, or we [primarily support] free content in Hungarian or other languages(=any language) that has a connection to Hungary [here the phrase primarily allows us to support free content that has no connection with Hungary]. The closing clause should be seen as a sign of openness aimed at the other chapters (some of them can be seen as having chosen some languages to support [primarily].
Your suggestions on how to rephrase this sentence, should its meaning and intended meaning be still unclear, are welcome. --Dami 10:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest a simple amendment to 2.4 - instead of The Association primarily supports free content in Hungarian, or those regarding Hungarian subjects in other languages, but it cooperates with other organisations with similar goals aimed at different languages. change to but may cooperate - Nathan Carter (Talk) 10:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion, we have included it. Currently we are finalising the details on how we should phrase the roles of the president and vice presidents (their joint access to the bankaccount, and their right to represent the association). I will update the translation with this detail as well. --Dami 15:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Synchronised with the current Hungarian version. --Dami 19:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)