Overleg:Archief/Conceptstatuten e.d./By-laws (Foundation/Association)

Uit Wikimedia
Naar navigatie springen Naar zoeken springen

Waar nu "see [xx]", zou daar wellicht met de sjabloontechnologie niet gewoon de desbetreffende alinea kunnen worden ingeplakt? Dit kan met behulp van {{:paginanaam#alinea}}. Effeietsanders 14 dec 2005 20:39 (CET)[reageer]


Article 4

A board member applicant must be a registered user at any of the authorised Wikimedia projects, who has made known to be available for board membership.

This, and actually this whole article, in my opinion, is a big mistake. You do not want to rule out people completely external to the Wikimedia projects for the Sichting's board and you do not want people who are fake users (ie. creating an account just to fit in this requirement). It is too complicated, too tied to the wikipedia and its changing rules. I believe this does not provide stability, it provides, on the contrary, instability. :-( I would be very simple and straightforward and keep these rules simple and vagueÒ: "an interest in Wikimedia and non-profit... etc. But I won't fight you on this, this is a very very personal and very very strong opinion. Delphine 18 jan 2006 09:45 (CET)[reageer]
Article 5 is tied to this one, so same comments apply. Delphine 18 jan 2006 09:46 (CET)[reageer]
Agree (at least to a large extent) with you.
Background: This is still the heritage of an earlier attempt (quite some time ago) to create a foundation which is more democratic than an association. I maintained so far the dual purpose text, because every now and then somebody raises the issue wether or not the association is the good thing to do.
Present view: As explained in the mail, most likely both institutions will co-exist. In that case the association is the democratic (necessarily restricted to membership) vehicle, the foudation the stable one. This means that the statutes/by-laws for the foundation will be simplified in order to ensure that stability (that's is the easy bit). As the views are evolving now, there is a distinct advantage to create such a dual "construction". W'll discuss that in more detail next Sunday's meeting. - RonaldB 22 jan 2006 17:48 (CET)[reageer]

Article 101

and the user name by which he/she will be kown on the internet pages of the association.

Same remark as above. What if anyone who is supportive of the goals of the association (my grand-mother, my best friend, who happens to be a lawyer and can help, my boss, who's a potential sponsor etc.) wants to join and has never edited? I am again strongly against tying the membership or participation in the association to being active on the Wikimedia projects. This is too restrictive and will be a burden in the long run, as both the projects and the assocaition grow. But again, this is just an opinion... Delphine 18 jan 2006 09:45 (CET)[reageer]
No problem. There are no restrictions on membership of the association, except for the user name on nl:wikimedia. This is just for practical purposes (public communications/discussions, etc.). So your grand-mother is still very welcome and I believe her grand-daughter will help her to generate a user name :-) - RonaldB 22 jan 2006 17:56 (CET)[reageer]
No, I still think that this makes things needlessly difficult. Believe me, I wouldn't want to spend even one hour trying to explain my grand-father to make a user name. :P Delphine 30 jan 2006 17:08 (CET)[reageer]
I do believe you, so you got the point. Adapted both in nl: and en: version. So we'll welcome your grandparents in due time ;-) - RonaldB 30 jan 2006 17:59 (CET)[reageer]

Article 105

1. A general assembly will be convoked if at least 10% of the members or at least 5 members request so.

I find 5 to be very little. Remember what powers the GA has, I think it should be 10 at least. You don't want a GA to be called every other day because some 5 friends got together and decided that the whole thing needed changing. Delphine 18 jan 2006 09:45 (CET)[reageer]
The 10% is a legal requirement. As it looks now, with max 30 (candidate) members, 3 is already enough. If the thing will grow in future and 5 friends decide to invent "GA spamming", my guess is that the other members, getting tired of this, will support any proposal to change the by-laws on this point (btw which is for free, because this doesn't need a notary). - RonaldB 22 jan 2006 18:03 (CET)[reageer]

Article 7

I need to run that article past Brad, the Foundation's lawyer, to see what the best phrasing for that is. Delphine 18 jan 2006 09:48 (CET)[reageer]

Awaiting any feed-back - RonaldB 22 jan 2006 18:04 (CET)[reageer]