Talk:Wikimedia Argentina/Bylaws/es
Hi there.
The bylaws seem to have been inspired from the French old bylaws, which have been changed in the meantime. You might want to look at these pages for more information :
and the new bylaws
notafish }<';> 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
General comments[edit]
- Comisión Directiva : Is that the board?
Ok, i got my answer by reading further. It is the board :-)
Art2 - 3[edit]
- Art2 - 3 Representar la asociación Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. del estado de Florida (Estados Unidos), en Argentina, de acuerdo a la voluntad de ésta. Cuando proceda, la Asociación Civil Wikimedia Argentina se asegurará de disponer de un mandato de representación a tal efecto.
No. This sentence is misleading. You have to realize that writing this in the bylaws opens a legal void as to whether or not the chapter is repsonsible for the content (ie. represents the Wikimedia Foundation). As such, this should not be present in your bylaws. notafish }<';> 12:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand. We'll correct it.--Patricio.lorente 13:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Art 3[edit]
- Art 3 - La Asociación podrá establecer filiales, seguidas por este mismo estatuto, en cualquier lugar geográfico de la República Argentina.
I am not sure I understand the exact legal implications of "filiales"? Are we talking about organisations, or just having different offices throughout Argentina, or people who can represent Wikimedia Argentina throughout the country? Is that a normal thing to do for an asociación in Argentina? notafish }<';> 12:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just having different offices throughout the country. For large civil associations is a normal thing to do, the exact attributions of this branches are given by the assembly who has to set a specific normative for them, and has to aprove the creation or even the disolution of a filial, but normally they act as simple territorial descentralizations to have local references. For us (the group of Wikimedia Argentina) it would be very important to build this branches because many of our more enthusiastic (and experienced) wikimedians live far away from Buenos Aires (San Miguel de Tucumán, 1130 km or Posadas, 1080 km).- km).--Patricio.lorente 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Art 7[edit]
- Art 7 - Una vez pagada la deuda social el remanente de los bienes será donado a una asociación decidida en la Asamblea de disolución.
Can this be the Wikimedia Foundation to start with? Is it desirable? (to be checked) notafish }<';> 12:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is a legal obligation. We have to decide an eventual destination of Wikimedia Argentina patrimony in case of dissolution. We haven't decide it yet, but we have to. We'd like to choose a brother organisation as Gleducar, but the problem is that we are a federal country and we must choose an institution from the same district of origin. Gleducar is from Santa Fé, and we are planning to present the bylaws at Buenos Aires city. But we don't think this is a huge problem: we are in the fase of creation, not dissolution :) --Patricio.lorente 14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Art 10-11[edit]
- Art 10-11 - Categorías de socios
I am not fine with the fact that the restrictions on the socios activos are made up with Wikimedia project participation. Doing this, you are recreating the Wikimedia "system" in real life and making it "legal", it does not make sense and I believe it is also harmful. Experience has proved that there are lots of people who have never edited a wikimedia project who are good people to have and help make decisions in the chapter. I would not have a problem with those categories if the socios adherentes were given right to vote in the general assembly as well, which is not the case in the present bylaws. When the chapter grows beyond just the Wikimedia projects, and starts talking with big organisations, you will find it very useful to have some famous professor in your members who has never edited the projects but supports them and has a voice in what is happening. notafish }<';> 13:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- We have the same point of view: the difference is that we pretend that the entry door for those who are not wikimedians would be the one of the "Socios Honorarios". As you can see, this category of associates has the same rights of the active associate, depending on the will of any honorary associate. --Patricio.lorente 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry I missed that part. If I understand that well, either they are proposed by the board, or they can be proposed by at least 30% of the other socios? And they need to be accepted by the general assembly? Why make this so complicated? I like the opt-in option for the socios honorarios (ie. if they want to vote or not), but I would just say "anyone who wants and is accepted by the board" or "anyone proposed by another socio". In short, I would keep the opt-in option, but would lose the whole complicated thing of having the assembly approve those members, in the long run, I don't think it can scale. notafish }<';>
Art 22[edit]
- Art 22- Adopción de resoluciones
If I understand that well, the resoluciones are taken by the comisión directiva. In the way your bylaws are written, ie. the comisión directiva is defined in article 26, it's not very clear that this is the case. I would move forward the articles that explain how the comisión directiva is elected and what their duties are and THEN put the art 22 about the resoluciones. Otherwise it is not clear at all. In short, move 26/27/28/29/30/31 before 22/23/24/25.
But maybe I am getting this all wrong. If that's the case, please explain what resoluciones we are talking about in art 22. :) notafish }<';> 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- This article is talking about the assembly, not the board. This are two different goverment scales for the association: the assembly joins one or two times a year (may be more, but that would be unusual) and every active associate can vote; and the board, that is elected by the assembly and is the goverment between assembles. --Patricio.lorente 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
(Note: we are using the standard bylaws for civil associations (with our modifications, of course), and, yes, it has not the best order and organisation between the different articles. However, with are trying to keep this order because the nearer we are from the standard, the less we'll have to discuss with the administration) --Patricio.lorente 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)