Dyskusja:Bylaws

Wikimedia Polska, polski partner Fundacji Wikimedia.
Skocz do: nawigacja, szukaj

This (Angela's comments I think) *I* being Delphine was from a discussion on IRC based on this version of the bylaws. It has been changed slightly to be more wiki-like.

New version comments[edytuj]

  • New version here after first comments. (31 aug. 2005)

I like it, it addressed most of the points raised in this iscussion. I am still not happy ;-) about Art. 13, as there is no legal way of putting this in practice (checkuser won't do, you can't really ask for members to give you their IP address). Delphine 09:08, 31 sie 2005 (UTC)

I agree again with your comment on Art. 13 but most people want to keep it. So, if the Wikimedia Board says this is unaceptable, we will have serious problem. In fact, some of our founding members are actually angry, that we have changed our statute according to your suggestions, and there may be problem with accepting it. Polimerek 22:23, 31 sie 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Chapter I[edytuj]

  • Art 3:

I don't know if it's possible in Poland, but we put in the bylaws that the association was based where its president lived, it prevents from changing the bylaws every time the president changes and the association needs to change base.Delphine 08:07, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)

I have the same comment than delphine regarding location of the association. However, this is to the polish association to define this. This is only a recommandation to avoid putting a clear address in the bylaws. It seems it is mandatory along their law. Anthere 17:48, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)
  • Art 5:

"The Association can use emblems and logos as determined by the resolutions of the Board." Which board? Angela

The Polish one. The resolution is of course the contract with the Foundation. Datrio
As is, I do not think the sentence is valid. The Board of the polish chapter does not own the logos and emblems or trademarks, so it can not freely decide to use them. This can only be done through a contract made between the polish chapter and the Wikimedia Foundation. I think this should be reflected in the bylaws or the sentence be removed because it is currently confusing. If the logos concerned are others, it should then be reflected in the text. Anthere 17:48, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)
  • Art 6:

"It especially takes care in Poland of the projects initiated and belonging to this Foundation" - this might need clarifying. It sounds a bit like you have control of the content, which shouldn't be the case. Angela

I'll check the Polish version, maybe it's mistranslated. Datrio
You might want to write "it promotes" instead of "takes care", that should do the trick. Delphine 08:07, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion of text modification :

it especially represents and promotes in Poland the projects initiated and belonging to this Foundation.

>"it especially represents and promotes in Poland the projects supported by this Foundation." if correct translation of polish.

Anthere 17:52, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Chapter II[edytuj]

Art 8[edytuj]

"Activity in the field of ecology, animal protection and nature inheritance." What is that for? Angela

Heh, knew you'll be surprised at that one. Article 8 is constructed like that, because it allows us to gain the status of a Public Usefulness Organization, which then allows us to get more grants money, and the citizens of Poland can give 1% of their taxes to our chapter. We put some nonsense info there, some of us were against it, but the majority were for it. Datrio
I could support including a clause to gain status of a Public Usefulness Organization, but it seems quite easy to me to do this in a way which makes clear our neutrality. "Activity in providing clear and unbiased information to help citizens make informed decisions about ecology, animal protection, nature inheritance, and other important issues."--Jimbo Wales 06:27, 23 sie 2005 (UTC)
This sorta came up during the Meetup when somebody figured we'd copy&paste parts of a bill on Public Benefit Organizations (or however that is translated). the reasoning was:
a) the more so called "goals" we have the easier it will be to apply for and get grants
b) we do have articles about flora and fauna so that's close enough to ecology and stuff
Now... I think neither I nor Datrio here can say we agree 100% with that reasoning, but that's the way it was decided. TOR

Art. 8. The Association's goals are: # The promotion and organization of volunteer work.

This seems a little too general. Are you referring to any volunteer work or work that helps to meet the goals of the association? Angela 18:00, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)


There are some major problems with these proposed bylaws (art. 8)[edytuj]

1. Equating everyone's rights to accessing the sum of human knowledge.

This sounds excessively political to me.

4. [Upowszechnianie i ochrona wolności i praw człowieka oraz swobód obywatelskich, a także działania wspomagających rozwój demokracji.]

I can't read this, but if 'demokracji' means 'democracy', this is excessively political.

5. European integration and developing contacts and co-operation between national societies.

"European integration" is not a proper position for the foundation. "Developing contacts and co-operation between other societies of the Wikimedia community" would be better.

6. Activity for national minorities.

What does this mean?

7. Cultivating national traditions, maintaining sense of the national traditions, citizenship and culture.

This is not appropriate.

8. Activity in the field of ecology, animal protection and nature inheritance.

This is really really really not appropriate. These are specific political positions and therefore inappropriate for a Wikimedia chapter.

Well.. if so, we have to consider to delete this section. In fact the only reason to put it to out statue was to apply for the status of a so called Public Usefulness Organization, which then allows us to get more grants money, and the citizens of Poland can give 1% of their taxes to our chapter. But if it is so serious problem for Foundation, we should probably get rid of it and come back to original version of this section of statute, which only said the our goal is to support Polish Wikimedia projects. Polimerek 12:40, 23 sie 2005 (UTC)

There is a middle way between the two, that is: strengthen the generation of free knowledge, help everyone to get access to knowledge etc. all the nice general foundation goals. I can't really believe that you have to support ecology, national minorities and european integration to become a Public Usefulness Organisation. It might suffice to work as a charity in education and free content. Could you check this? --Elian 23:00, 29 sie 2005 (UTC)
I very much agree with Elian. We had the same concern while writing the French bylaws, ie. make sure they would allow the association to be of "general interest" and allow tax deductibility. However, while the French law specifies about the same number of things the Polish one does to get this status of general interest, it does not ask for an association to promote all of these things. One is enough. In your case, I would argue that a sentence like:
The goals of the association are to work to promote and ensure everyone's equal right to access information in the range of knowledge, culture and education, through charity activity and the promotion and organisation of volunteer work. should be enough. The sentence is a bit strange in English, but you should make it so it takes into consideration as many of the points listed in Polish law, but only those which have a connection to what we're doing. :-) Delphine 07:56, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)
I already answered to that one above, but I will state this once more: I totally agree with the both of you. The first draft had only two goals IIRC (education and free access to knowledge or something along that lines), this version is a result of a discussion during the meetup which didn't go too well (nobody listened to me :-( ). We will try to convince the rest to forget about ecology and all that other stuff... Wish us luck. :) TOR 16:46, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)
Well...is "If you put that in, you won't get Wikimedia's board approval" enough of a statement to help convince the others? ;-). The revised version is great. Delphine 09:11, 31 sie 2005 (UTC)

art. 9[edytuj]

1.Support the development and maintenance of projects based on the wiki technology, as in, having content editable by every privileged user.

What is a "priviledged" user? Delphine
Well it is wrong translation... In fact, in Polish version it simply says "by every user who is allowed to use the project" - and we have in Polish one, nice word "uprawniony", which means "allowed to use". If you know good english word, which means the same, please give us a tip :-) Polimerek

3. Representing outside the internet projects of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikibooks and all the others, further known as "Wikimedia Projects", in a Polish, Kaszubian or any other language used by an ethnic or national group traditionally based on the Polish territory.[?]

What is the "outside"? And the language reference here applies to the projects (project in Polish language), or the representation (representation in Polish language)? Delphine 08:31, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)
It is again wrong translalation. "outside" (in original version "na zewnątrz") means in Polish law language "to the general public, media and state authorities". The second problem is also due to translation problems. Original text says that we are going to represent projects written in Polish and other languages, which are spoken by miniorities, who live or lived traditionaly on Polish teritiory. (like Kaszubian). Polimerek 09:20, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)
OK, for outside. I would avoid the restriction of projects to those in Polish language etc. I think you can talk to the "outside" about all projects, and promote all of them, even in English and French. Putting the language in your bylaws restricts you a bit I would say. "Wikimedia projects" is enough. If it really needs to be there, then I would say something like "and particularly those written in the Polish language etc." Just don't make it exclusive of other languages. Delphine 11:15, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)

"4.Monitoring the compliance with the law of the Wikimedia projects" - I'm not sure this is something you want to tie yourself to. The projects don't actually have to comply with Polish law if they're on American servers, and how would you enforce this sort of thing? Angela

Technically it doesn't say anything about enforcing ;) and I think you're only half right about the compliance thing. TOR
Isn't this something that you would need lawyers for? It doesn't sound very practical to say non lawyers will be doing it. Even though they will, this seems more of a thing that happens within the projects, not within the chapter. Angela
Because, for a user based in Poland to be able to use the content, the content has to be OK as far as Polish law is concerned. TOR
So, the chapter will control the content? I don't believe this should be the case. There needs to be a separation from the chapters and the projects. Angela
No, we don't control anything ;) The way I see it in action, that is the chapter will try to point out some problems to the community. I agree with you 100%. and, again, there's no mention of control anywhere (unless I overlooked something :P). TOR
Ok. I think that's all the comments I have for now. Let me know when the rest is translated. Angela 20:08, 22 sie 2005 (UTC)
Will do. TOR
Okay, sure thing. Datrio
I agree with Angela here, I think you should not tie yourself into that kind of legal thing. Basically, if the content is to be used by a Polish user or by a Polish publisher, they will be responsible for compliance with Polish law, that's what publishers are for :). The Foundation is publisher of the websites, thus responsible for their content in case of legal problems, but if a Polish company wishes to distribute the content, they are responsible. Wikimedia Poland will only provide the content "as is". And not even, since content is free of use. Delphine 08:37, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)
In Italy we went the other way round. We clearly stated that "...Wikimedia Italia has no interest in intervening in the collective management of these websites, especially whe it comes to rules, decisions, contents, or any other collective act. This doesn't exclude to its members to express their personal opinion on these arguments." --Snowdog 15:20, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)


Art. 9. The Association realizes its goals through: # Supporting the development and maintenance of projects based on the wiki technology

Any projects that use wiki technology or just Wikimedia ones? What if Wikimedia were to have projects using some other software? Angela 18:00, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)
Note Angela, that the WMF mission statement specifically mention wiki-based projects as well Anthere 18:15, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)

Art 13[edytuj]

Every legal subject person may become a regular member of the Association, who has full capability to legal activity and isn't deprived of their public privileges, and who:

  1. is a contributor to at least one Wikimedia project,
I find this very restrictive. There might be people who don't contribute to the projects themselves, and who wish to be part of the Polish association. Moreover, how on earth are you going to control whether someone is a contributor on a project? There is no way you can control who has which user name. I would leave this out. Delphine 08:40, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)
Yes... I agree.. I have exactly same feelings, but I was in minority during writting the statute :-) Polimerek
Well, I don't really mind, I just would like to know how the "majority" who was against you will make sure that a member of the association has an account on one of the projects and is a contributor ;-). Delphine 11:04, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)

It is rather easy to control, who of candidates to be a member of association is an active contributor. I imagine it, when the User:XXX decides to participate in the Association, first of all, from his/her XXX-account, he/she writes an e-mail to the Board: "I am User:XXX, my real name is John Smith and I would like to be member of the Association". The board, after this mail, starts its internal procedure of verificaion. This verification supports on the analysing of User:XXX's contributions. Don't forget, the board "can", but do not "have to" accept every application.
It is a pity, when Polimerek says "I was in minority", but the majority during the Krakow-meeting accepted this "active parcitipation" as a clearness. I did not hear in Krakow any word against, this was not disputed at all.
But, if there are any important objections... Tell me, why don't you want to accept this limitation? I just want to read arguments, maybe we omit something important... --Julo 12:06, 1 wrz 2005 (UTC)

OK, first, let me make something clear, this is not about not "accepting" this proposition. If it's here, I can live with it. I just think it is extremely restrictive and that Wikimedia Polska will suffer from it rather than that it is a good thing. Here are the reasons why:
1-It is agreed that, just like the Wikimedia Foundation or any other chapter, Wikimedia Polska will not have any power on the content of the projects. Therefore I do not understand why the contrary should be true, ie. anyone who wants to participate in Wikimedia Polska must contribute to the projects.
2- Let me give you a few examples of what this means: Let us take a well known professor, who loves Wikipedia or any other project, think it is great but has neither the wiki-skills, nor the time, nor even the will to contribute. Just because this rule exists, they cannot be a member of Wikimedia Polska. I believe that is a great loss. Another example. Some CEO of some really rich Polish Company wants to show his support in what Wikimedia Polska does, and decides to be a regular member, because he first wants to see how the association is run, what it does, before he decides that his company will give 100 000 dollars. He is not a contributor and does not wish to be one, he just wants to make sure that Wikimedia Polska is run well. Well, he can't be a regular member, because he does not havea n account. Let's have a third example. Mr. Blue is a very faithful reader of the Polish Wikipedia. It's his start page on his browser, he loves showing it to his grand children, he keeps talking about it. But he hates the software, or has not found anything smart to do on Wikipedia, or just has no time. Well, he can't show his appreciation of the work done by becoming a member of Wikimedia Polska, because he's not a regular user. I could go on for ever with examples why I think this requirement is very restrictive.
3-I think you will also argue endlessly about how you really define "contributor". Who is a "contributor"? Someone with 400 edits? In article space? Everywhere? Someone who has been there for a long time? 2 weeks minimum? In short, what criteria make a "regular user"? This can be either bypassed by the people who *really* want to be a member, they'll edit 400 pages and then never edit again maybe?
4- I think your proposition does not scale. It's ok with 35 members, but I certainly think that the board of Wikimedia Polska will have better--Julo 21:36, 3 wrz 2005 (UTC) things to do than to make sure if someone has so many edits, if the password is right etc.
Well, these are my reasons. Whether they convince you or not, is not very important ;-). I really think you are making everybody's life more difficult with such a clause. That's all. :-). Hope these answer your questions. Best, Delphine 23:20, 1 wrz 2005 (UTC)

I have read your answer, Delphine. For next three weeks I'll be on my holidays, and now I rather can not continue any important dispute. I just want to mention, my point of view is not to make anybody's life more difficult, but quite inversely. Your examples are pretty, but they are just from the Moon or Mars. We live on our Earth and we have to step hard on the ground, without head in the clouds; the Board of Wikimedia Polska will never meet any professor who loves Wiki but hates computers, or any bussnessman who like a fabulous prince - first will want to disguise as "simple user". Times of Peter I of Russia, who worked in Dutch port as longshoreman before he founed Saint Petersburg passed long time ago by. For today and the anticipated future the board must have enough power to say "no" against not accepted applications. I am sure this will be a problem, not any guy with hundred thousand dollars. Proposed clause will help the Board in this job.

That is my opinion. Regards --Julo 21:36, 3 wrz 2005 (UTC)

OK, then, I give up. :-). Let's talk about it in a few months/years. Best. Delphine 09:11, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)

I understand this position. Both positions (welcoming only editors to be members, or welcoming anyone) have benefits and drawbacks. I see no reason to consider the current choice as wrong, but I would consider wrong using such systems as check user to check the "reality" of the member being an editor. The system using a password sent to a new member and asking him to put it on his user page seems fine to me. The association could be careful to preserve the new member identity, by not revealing the link between real name and pseudonyme if requested. Anthere 18:10, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Chapter III[edytuj]

Art. 14. ## be able to use the Association's equipment, services and support;

I don't think this is very practical, especially with no limits attached. What if you buy servers for Wikimedia. Can anyone then demand use of those servers? Is the use not even limited to things that would help meet the goals of the chapter? Angela 18:00, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)
This has been fixed. Thanks, Angela, we must have overlooked that part. TOR 19:28, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)

Art 14. ## is a contributor to at least one Wikimedia project,

This is condition is completely harmful. Contributing in Wikimedia projects should be voluntary only. If anyone wants to help in a chapter it's the person in real life and not his Wikipedia account. -- nichtich 17:03, 18 wrz 2005 (UTC)

Art 14. ## has been accepted by the Board

This is dangerous because it can easily lead to a closed club of insiders. The better way is to generally accept every new member give the the board the right to reject new member in single cases. -- nichtich 17:03, 18 wrz 2005 (UTC)

Art. 16. ## be able to use the Association's devices, testimonies and its help;

Doesn't this duplicate article 14? It has the problems that one does. Angela 18:00, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)
No, this is not a duplicate. This applies to supporting members whereas article 14 talks about regular members. TOR 19:28, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)
  • Art 27:

2. The number of The Board of The Association member cannot be lower than 3 and higher than 7.

who determines the actual number? Elian
The General Assembly I guess, but you are right it should be clearly stated... Polimerek
This has been fixed. TOR 19:28, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)

3-4 )The President of The Board of The Association is elected by The Board of The Association. The Vice-Presidents, Secretary, and Tresurer of The Association are elected by The Board of The Association from members of he Board of The Association.

this can be shortened to one paragraph (or just general "The board elects among its members the president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer)Elian
This is mistake in translation. The President is to be elected by The General Assembly. Polimerek

7. The Board of The Association's meeting has to take place at least four times a year.

sensible as a goal, but no need to put it in the statutes. speaking of real life meetings here.Elian
Well it does not say anything about "real life" meetings - we can arrange these meeting on IRC. According to Polish law, we have to put such a statement to our statute. Polimerek 18:51, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)
As Poli said - if it doesn't specify the place, time etc. everything goes. TOR 19:28, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Chapter IV[edytuj]

Art. 27. #The Board of The Association's meeting has to take place at least four times a year.

Can this meeting be online? Angela 18:00, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)
  • Art. 31

Members of The Revision Comittee cannot be charged by any crimes by legal courts.

huch? Elian
I suppose the real phrasing of this must be something like: "The people becoming members of the revision committee must not have been charged for any crimes by legal courts". ie. If you've been charged for a crime, you can't be a member of the revision committee. Delphine 09:08, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this what exactly says original version - this is simply my bad transtlation. Polimerek

Comments on Chapter V[edytuj]

  • Art 39:

4. It is forbidden: 4) to purchase on preferential conditions any goods or services from entities which are conected with members of The Association, members ot its authorities, employees of The Association, or their relatives;

while I fully understand the purpose of this paragraph, I am not sure if it's wise. This is a problem which can be dealt with by social pressure. Imagine the case: you want to print promotion material, and you can either go to a unrelated printer and pay normal prices, or go to the father of a member who happens to run a printer and gives you a special discount. Of course, there is an abuse possibility, but if you have to limit, limit it to the board members who make the decisions. so far my 2 cents --Elian 23:13, 29 sie 2005 (UTC)
Under Polish law, this article is necessary for a Public Benefit Organization and we intend to apply for that status next year (also specified by Polish law - an organization must operate for 1 year before appling). TOR 16:33, 30 sie 2005 (UTC)

Miss speling[edytuj]

Art. 32 line 2: directing petitions to The Board of The Asscociation as a result of coducted inspections should probably be: directing petitions to The Board of The Asscociation as a result of conducted inspections.--Juan de Vojníkov 09:42, 26 maj 2009 (CEST)

Of course - thanks Juan :-) Polimerek 12:52, 26 maj 2009 (CEST)