Talk:Wikimedia Chapters Association/Charter
Concerns about the charter[edit]
I have already expressed some concerns earlier and I am afraid that they are still as valid as before. There are some articles that I cannot understand why they are worded as they are, and which makes me hesitate a lot about recommending our chapter to join. My main problem is Section D, article 3. That will effectively mean that the chapters are bound for liftime on all decisions being made while they are members of the association, regardless of that is a decision so serious that they would consider to withdraw from the association and that they voted against. Or is it my poor English skills that make me miss the point? Ainali (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see your point. The discussions in Berlin could effectively deal only with the broad strokes of the charter, and the result is a vast improvement over what was originally presented to us. There are a number of issues remaining with wording ambiguities at a level where I wonder whether what is said matches with what was intended. These are especially important in a group mostly cmposed of non-native English speakers who also speak a broad variety of languages. Some of these can probably be resolved before Washington Wikimania where the Charter can be affirmed by duly elected council members. Beyond that the Council should appoint a committee (including at least one native English speaker) to consider the more complicated passages for submission at the next following meeting. Beyond that it could be a standing committee that considers new proposals for amendment. Eclecticology (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Eclecticology. Due to the time constraints, we only discussed amendments which were suggested in a somewhat rushed procedure. So rush that as a non-native English speaker I did not have to suggest amendments of my own. Beyond the obvious, I think the most important in Berlin thing was the fact we showed a productive open discussion can happen. I am very committed to this type of discussion (and I hope I proved it in Berlin). If Section D, article 3 is what bothers you, rest assure that it can be resolved. We plan on having a subgroup to suggest the standing orders of the association, which you can be part of. If needed it will also suggest amendments to the charter in D.C. Tomer A. 07:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would have liked to see the amendment proposals coming, in a suitable form, before Berlin. Real life gathering time is expensive... Ziko (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Ainali: I think that there will have to be significant changes no matter what - simply because of the incorporation. I suggest to collect all these wording matters on this page like Tomer suggested, and take care of it in the same wave of changes. There are probably some more unintended ambiguities and I think most chapters wouldn't mind fixing those. I assume (but Tomer can probably confirm) that there will be another review round once a final draft is made which also fits with the laws of the country of incorporation. Effeietsanders (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't given that much thought yet but I'm a flexible person. If we'll see that there's a need to have another round of amendments it would defiantly happen. I know people have concerns, especially those who weren't in Berlin and saw the constructive process we've been through. That's understandable and I do hope that we can gain their trust online throughout the process. Tomer A. Talk 10:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Let's hope that those amendments happen "definitely" rather than "defiantly". ;-) Eclecticology (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- תזכור שמנענו את ההכנסה של צרפתית, ספרדית וגרמנית בתור שפות רשמיות. :) Tomer A. Talk 12:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Let's hope that those amendments happen "definitely" rather than "defiantly". ;-) Eclecticology (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't given that much thought yet but I'm a flexible person. If we'll see that there's a need to have another round of amendments it would defiantly happen. I know people have concerns, especially those who weren't in Berlin and saw the constructive process we've been through. That's understandable and I do hope that we can gain their trust online throughout the process. Tomer A. Talk 10:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Ainali: I think that there will have to be significant changes no matter what - simply because of the incorporation. I suggest to collect all these wording matters on this page like Tomer suggested, and take care of it in the same wave of changes. There are probably some more unintended ambiguities and I think most chapters wouldn't mind fixing those. I assume (but Tomer can probably confirm) that there will be another review round once a final draft is made which also fits with the laws of the country of incorporation. Effeietsanders (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would have liked to see the amendment proposals coming, in a suitable form, before Berlin. Real life gathering time is expensive... Ziko (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Eclecticology. Due to the time constraints, we only discussed amendments which were suggested in a somewhat rushed procedure. So rush that as a non-native English speaker I did not have to suggest amendments of my own. Beyond the obvious, I think the most important in Berlin thing was the fact we showed a productive open discussion can happen. I am very committed to this type of discussion (and I hope I proved it in Berlin). If Section D, article 3 is what bothers you, rest assure that it can be resolved. We plan on having a subgroup to suggest the standing orders of the association, which you can be part of. If needed it will also suggest amendments to the charter in D.C. Tomer A. 07:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
XX minutes and days[edit]
The Charter still contains " X minutes ", " XX minutes" and "XX days" throughout. Has there been a decision on what these values should be? John Vandenberg (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I assume you're referring to the standing orders rather than the charter? I don't think the latter has anything left to be filled in. Kirill [talk] 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Doh". Thanks Kirill. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)