Talk:Wikimedia Norge/Bylaws

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

Bra![edit]

Dette så jo riktig bra ut! Bombadil 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[]

Kommentar til oversettelsen[edit]

"with the forms Wikimedia Noreg and Wikimedia Norga having equal status"

- synes "forms" høres norvenglish ut... Har slått det opp i Clue, finner ikke at det passer, tror det bør være en bedre formulering. Ulflarsen 18:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Hva med bare «names»? Jon Harald Søby 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[]

"Disagreements between Wikimedia Norge and the Wikimedia Foundation shall be resolved in accordanced with the ’Agreement between chapters and Wikimedia Foundation’."

-skal vel være "in accordance"? Ikke bokstaven d til sist... Ulflarsen 19:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Jepp. Jon Harald Søby 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[]

"being an organ of negotiation in relation to authorities and organisations regarding copyright issues."

- høres ikke bra ut med "organ", hva med "voice" eller "agency"? Eller noe annet... Ulflarsen 19:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[]

"The general assembly shall be required to consider the following items:"

-på norsk står det:

"Årsmøtet skal minimum behandle følgende saker:"

- Bør ikke den engelske oversettelsen inneholde "minimum"? Hva med følgende setning?

"The general assembly shall at least consider the following items:"

-andre formuleringer kan være bedre, men den engelske oversettelsen synes her å ikke være i samsvar med den norske originalen. Ulflarsen 19:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[]

"The annual report and the audited accounts."

- i følge min Clue bør det være annual accounts, foreslår derfor følgende:

"The annual report and the audited annual accounts."

"The board shall be responsible for the organisation’s finances. The audited accounts shall be placed before the general assembly. The board shall allocate entitlements to allotments and distributions."

- undres om det ikke her og bør inn "annual accounts", se samme over. Ulflarsen 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[]

"Candidates shall be announced two (2) weeks before the holding of an ordinary election."

- på norsk står det:

"Kandidater bør være kjent to – 2 – uker før ordinært valg foretas."

- etter min ringe kunnskap om det engelske språk så er den engelske versjonen her ikke lik den norske. Stiftelsesmøtet valgte formuleringen "bør" så det kan være en liten fleksibilitet mht fristen for valget, dette bør gjengis i den engelske teksten. Ulflarsen 19:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Hva med bare «should», i stedet for «shall»? Jeg tror forøvrig også «candidates» bør endres til «candidacies». Jon Harald Søby 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[]

"The committee shall consist of at least three members of the organisation who are regular contributors to one of the relevant projects."

- på norsk står det:

"Komiteen er satt sammen av minst tre av foreningens medlemmer som er faste bidragsytere på et av de tilknyttede prosjektene."

- er skeptisk til at "tilknyttet" oversettes med "relevant", den engelske teksten synes ikke å være i samsvar med den norske. Ulflarsen 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Comments[edit]

Hello. Those are some of my comments on this draft.

§ 1 Introduction[edit]

  • b) Wikimedia Norge shall abide by the vision and guidelines of the Wikimedia Foundation for the mission of spreading free knowledge. Disagreements between Wikimedia Norge and the Wikimedia Foundation shall be resolved in accordance with the ’Agreement between chapters and Wikimedia Foundation’.

I don't think that this should be in your bylaws. You have to think of Wikimedia Norway as an independant organization. Tying its goals to those of the Wikimedia Foundation is just not very independant. What if the Wikimedia Foundation decides tomorrow to sell sushi and has nothing to do with free knowledge anymore?. Moreover, tying your bylaws to a contract that has a one-year term to start with seems to me a very precarious thing to do. Notwithstanding the problems that will arise of "who signs" the agreement before Wikimedia Norway exists legally, since Wikimedia nNorway is bond by its bylaws to this agreement. I would simply get rid of that part altogether. notafish }<';> 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC).[]

Like delphine says, you shouldn't tie them to the WMF goals, they should be compatible but not tied, you are an independant "sister" foundation.DamianFinol 12:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[]

§ 2 Mission[edit]

a) The mission of Wikimedia Norge is to strengthen Wikimedia projects in Norwegian and Sami languages, through: I would add the word specifically. You might come to help other projects than jsut those in those languages

  1. the collection of economic resources through gifts and grants, and the distribution of these funds.
  2. participating in coordinating cooperation between the projects, and cooperating with third parties where this can serve Wikimedia projects.
  3. strengthening cooperation with Wikimedia projects in other Nordic countries.
  4. promoting Wikimedia projects.
  5. being a voice of negotiation in relation to authorities and organisations regarding copyright issues.
    Although this is one of the goals that you might pursue, you *really* don't want to write it in so many words. This can easily be interpreted (among other interpretations) as "Wikimedia Norway is responsible for any fraudulous content on the Wikimedia websites. I would either phrase that very differently or get rid of it altogether.
    Wikimedia Norway doesn't own the copyrights/lefts or has any power over what's in the projects, so you shouldn't exactly say "hey we are the guys you should yell at if your bio page is libelous"DamianFinol 12:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[]
  6. being the formal owner of Internet domains on behalf of the projects. The organisation shall itself not make decisions as to how these domains shall be used, but shall follow decisions made by the various projects.
    Errrr, you are submitting a real-life legally binding process to "the decisions made by the various projects". What are "the various projects? How are they going to make their decision known? What if "the various projects" decide to point all domains owned by Wikimedia Norway to Citizendium, or to amazon? Not to mention that the ownership of domain names has to be cleared with the Foundation first. I think this part is way too detailled and has nothing to do in the bylaws. I'd have no problem if you decided this as a "resolution" giving a guideline on how to use domain names owned by the association for example, but putting this in the bylaws is definitely overkill. notafish }<';> 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[]

§ 3 Membership[edit]

c) The board can suspend membership of any member deemed to be damaging the work or reputation of Wikimedia Norge or Wikipedia. All formal decisions on expulsion shall be taken at a general assembly, and appeals against such decisions shall be put to the general assembly. Suspended and expelled members do not have voting rights, as they are no longer considered members, and cannot hold positions of responsibility within Wikimedia Norge.

I am sceptical as to the fact that Wikimedia Norway should engage itself specifically to suspend membership of someone who speaks ill of Wikipedia, or disrupts Wikipedia (this is how I read "who damages the work or reputation of Wikipedia"). Wikimedia Norway should never have any kind of say in said work of Wikipedia. I believe leaving it to "work of reputation of Wikimedia Norge is enough. notafish }<';> 15:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[]

§ 4 General assembly[edit]

a) The ordinary general assembly of Wikimedia Norge shall be held annually before the end of April. The board shall decide the time, procedure and venue for the assembly.

Does it HAVE to be before the end of April? I would simply state: the ordinary general aseembly of Wikimedia Norge must be held at least once annually. notafish }<';> 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[]

e) Any member who has paid their membership fee and been registered on at least one of the Norwegian or Sami Wikimedia projects for at least three months, and has at least 400 edits, is entitled to vote.

Wait. In the former explanation of who can be member, you say "anyone who agrees with the goals". And now, you restrict active membership with a number of edits? I am personally strongly against tying any kind of "number of edits" or "participation in the projects" to the membership. With this clause, I believe you are shutting out anyone who would be an active supporter of the organisation but who cannot/doesn't want to participate, ie. my grand-mother, a potential sponsor, a pro-bono lawyer who is interested in your work but does not want to edit while still wanting to have a say in how the organisation is conducted, etc. My personal little motto goes "An organisation is not a wiki". All chapters who have made the choice to open to other people than just editors have at no time regretted it, on the contrary. notafish }<';> 15:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[]

General comments[edit]

Just to make one thing clear. The comments I make are my own, and are made in light of my experience as chapters coordinator for Wikimedia and other non-profit experience over the years. None of them are "definite" in the sense that "Wikimedia Norway won't be accepted if you don't change everything I say", except those that regulate the relationship between chapter and Foundation, which *really* need to be addressed. (that would be specifically comments about §1). Hope that clarifies my comments here. notafish }<';> 11:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Comments to comments from Delphine Menard[edit]

Seems we are basically on the right course, as there are no real changes needed for us to be accepted as a chapter. Regarding the first para, we have decided to base our local chapter on the foundation in Florida, and in my opinion that is a sound decision. There is of course allways a risk that as you Menard states: "What if the Wikimedia Foundation decides tomorrow to sell sushi and has nothing to do with free knowledge anymore?." - probably on line with the chance of Norway sliding out in the Norwegian Sea. In both cases the Norwegian chapter would be in trouble.

Regarding the rest of Menards comments, as far as I can see they would, if implemented, just shorten the bylaws, and that in my opinion would just be fine, the shorter the better. So we can cut out various text we don't need at the next general assembly, but we keep para 1b as it is. Ulflarsen 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]

The proposed changes are discussed within the Wikimedia Norway board and I guess there will be a statement during august. Jeblad 05:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[]
OK, Now this is an official comment (see my comment above which specifically pointed that out). Wikimedia Norway must be very clearly an independant organisation, as stated in the requirements. "Abiding by the bylaws of" is not independant. I do not know how it sounds like in Norwegian, but in English, "abide" is a very very strong word, which in my opinion places Wikimedia Norway "under" the Foundation. As for the comment about the chapter agreement, that one is also an "official" comment. And a common sense one, ie. you can't register a company/association/organisation tying it to an agreement that does not exist in the first place. in short, paragraph 1b) *must* change, or my recommandation to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation will be not to approve of those bylaws. notafish }<';> 10:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[]
Honestly I do not get the point, we will indeed be an independent organisation, if need be we will prove it by keeping para 1b... :-) What it says it that we align ourselves along what goals Wikimedia Foundation has, and except from that we are of course an independent organisation. Besides that I really do not understand why Menard dig into this detail - would be more useful if she helped us having the organisation up and running. If we are going to change this we will have to have a new meeting, which surely will take some months, and I really do not see the need for it. Ulflarsen 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[]
We're having a constructive conversation with the Chapters Committee, and we'll be back with more info as soon as there's anything to tell. In the meantime, please have patience! All is not lost! ;) -- SLB (no) 11:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[]

Comments by Nathan Carter[edit]

As the bylaws stand they sound as though you are setting up a branch of the foundation in Norway. This is not what a chapter is about. A wikimedia chapter is an organisation of people who are interested in supporting and promoting projects of the foundation. The requirements are explicit in stating that chapters must be independent organisations.

While I feel it is fine that the WMF be mentioned in your bylaws, it should only be along the lines of "Wikimedia Norway shall promote the use of the Wikimedia foundation's projects..." and nothing that implies a closer tie than that. -Nathan Carter (Talk) 12:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Comments by Austin Hair[edit]

I'm probably the biggest stickler on the committee for language implying representation or liability in chapter bylaws, and I definitely concur with the points made here about §§ 1 and 2. I find 1b unacceptable as in English—perhaps the phrasing in the native languages is less strong, but "shall abide" doesn't work for me. This is compounded by 2a5 and 2a6, both of which should be clarified or removed.

Chapters should at all times remain completely independent, not just for philosophical reasons, but for their own protection. There's a very real and even likely possibility someone will pursue legal action against you for content on a Wikimedia project, and you want to be able to say "We're just a local chapter, we don't operate the sites or represent the Wikimedia Foundation in any way." 2a5 actually makes me wonder if this is something you want to do, and if it is, you're very sadly misguided.

Wikimedia Deutschland's original bylaws, on which several of the other chapters have based their own, state their mission as being to "support the creation, collection and distribution of Open Content in a non-profit way, to support the equal opportunity to access to knowledge and the education." Wikimedia Italia, as stated in its bylaws, "collaborates with the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." This is the sort of language we're looking for in a mission statement. (Although the WMF doesn't really like the term "open content" anymore and we're not "The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.," so don't copy them exactly.)

Regarding the fairly minor point of 2a's introductory sentence, I would say something like (edits in bold) "The mission of Wikimedia Norge is to strengthen Wikimedia projects, particularly in the Norwegian and Sami languages." (Delphine says "specifically," but I don't think this is quite the word she was looking for. Choose the best word in the other languages, of course.)

I would definitely remove "or Wikipedia" from 3c, and I too am confused about membership/voting rights. Am I correct in reading that I, as a person who supports the aims of the organization, can be a member, but I can't vote? I can't imagine I would do such a thing, in that case. Personally, I don't like this rule much, but I'm not going to say that approval is contingent on removing it.

Pretty good in general, but there seem to be some perspective issues we need to work out.

Austin 19:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[]

To fix the problem I suggest Menard, Carter and Hair just agree on a text, then we may wote on it and then change the bylaws on a new meeting, then the affair is fixed and we can get on with the local chapter work. Ulflarsen 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[]
Please have patience and let the board deal with this! As commented above we'll be back with more info as soon as there's anything to tell! :) -- SLB (no) 11:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[]