Brion Vibber wrote: Could these points be stated explicitly in the bylaws, please? I got another impression by reading the bylaws. greetings, elian

From: "Elisabeth Bauer" <elian(a)djini.de> If you want Wikimedia to be a real NPO it has to have some kind of structure. Jimbo has decided to make it a membership organization, members get into disputes and they look to someone for resolution of those disputes. This is an attempt to give them a way to deal with those issues and to make sure that there is a clear distinction between the "official" board of trustees and any other structure that might exist so that there is no "hierarchy" between the Board of Trustees and the various projects beyond that which is necessary for the projects to legally be part of Wikimedia. If you want the benefits of NPO tax exempt status you need some structure. My suggestion is to make it as minimal and egalitarian as possible, each wikipedia community can do what it wants to do, if you want a lot of structure, o.k., if you want no structure, some minimal foothold for dealing with issues. I agree with you Brian, each project is independent but with so many people complaining that the Board of Trustees are a bunch of shills of Jimbo perhaps there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. This proposal is that line. Regarding edit disputes, members already deal with that, this is just recognizing that the community of each Wikipedia project will have the right to decide these disputes in the way that they see fit with no interference from the outside power structure. Why does everything have to be stated in the bylaws, the bylaws are just a general governing body document, they don't have anything to do with the day to day activities of the various Wikipedia projects, once again this is my point, keep the two things separate by saying they are separate and keeping some structure. The reporting requirement will be useful for Wikimedia's fundraising efforts and reporting to the IRS each year. Alex756

Elisabeth Bauer wrote: I'm not sure how you can really get an absolute guarantee of that though. If the Wikimedia Foundation owns the servers, it has de facto control over everything, whether the bylaws say so or not. And even if the bylaws set up some sort of "self-government" for sub-Wikimedia entities, the bylaws can always be changed by a future Board of Trustees. Unless each Wikipedia is to purchase and administer its own servers, and choose its own name (other than "Wikipedia"), I don't see how we can have projects not be subordinate, at least in a legal and technical sense, to the main organization. -Mark

From: "Elisabeth Bauer" <elian(a)djini.de> There must be some ultimate forum for enforcing rules whomever makes them up. What this committee structure is stating is that each Wikipedia and other wikimedia project makes them up. The board of trustees is who has to deal with lawsuits, not individuals who are only voluntary commitees. The rules are ONLY enforceable by the Board, they may delegate them, let members make them up and do whatever they want but the Board is the final arbiter of those as it is protecting the corporate entity which is not just the servers, it is the sum of what Wikipedia is, that is what people are giving money for, to make sure Wikipedia keeps running, not just to make sure there is server hardware and bandwidth. As far as what is going to happen in twenty years no one knows. The Bylaws do not give anyone any more certainty in this regard. They can be changed, any corporate document can be changed. Right now it can be changed by three people, later it will be five. I would rather that they delegate their authority to governing committees and let the governing committees run the individual Wikipedia and other wikimedia projects. As far as the future is concerned this is not the United States of Wikipedia or the European Union of Wikipedians, it is just a small group of volunteers having the time of their life creating the world's largest knowledge base encyclopedia. At this point that encyclopedia can exist even if Wikimedia dies a sudden death, so what is the big deal about a few bylaws that are required for a bunch of accountants and lawyers to justify their jobs. Let them have their bylaws I say and let's get on with making more Wikipedias! No one is going to start telling the Welsh Wikipedians what to do, except more Welsh speaking volunteers, you know that don't you? Isn't that obvious? What is Jimbo going to do, start finding translators to read every page on every different language Wikipedia to make sure that no one is breaking the rules? No, it is obviously going to be self enforcement. Each individual project makes its own rules, if there is some need for a final statement, i.e. you are banned from this project, then the Board of Wikimedia can just make a final statement for that committee. The committee can then rely upon the Board to make sure that the decision is implemented and in a way the Board of Trustees becomes a limited type of appeal just to make sure that there is nothing that would call Wikimedia's not-for-profit status into question. That's all. Why don't you see that? Alex756

I am suddenly having doubts. What I wrote below is my vision of Wikipedia (the big project) I have little vision of the other projects, perhaps could other people express their sentiments on those ? No one made any comments ? Does that mean everyone agree, or no one read ? :-) I am serious there. Perhaps am I wrong on one of these points. I tried to state the core principles of the Wikipedias. Perhaps I made a mistake ? Perhaps for example, are we planning to make people pay for it in a while ? Is there a ***charter*** somewhere ? Mav, was there not a beginning of a draft of a charter somewhere ? Did not we have a discussion about that ? I found http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_charter, with a very wise comment from Little Dan at the top We need this. That is the charter that will set the ciment between the various languages. We need a charter. Don't you think ? Anthere a écrit:

Before any type of answer Ec...allow me... As we move forward with software and social changes, I think it is imperative that I state clearly and forcefully my views on openness and the license. This page, like all wikipedia pages, is a living dynamic document which I will update and clarify as legitimate questions arise. I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them. This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate fundamental level, this is how wikipedia will be run, period. (But have no fear, as you will see, below.) 1. Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty. 2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny". "Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other. For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community. 3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. 4. Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community consensus. 5. The GNU FDL license, the openness and _viral_ nature of it, are fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license. 6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at the Wikipedia itself. 7. Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone who just bitches without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk. 8. Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends. And I'll treat you the same way.

Christopher Mahan a écrit: Thanks Christopher for all the yea ! :-) But I did not write all that of course :-)

Nicolas Weeger a écrit: Nicolas...you must be joking :-) I did not write that. I never state things clearly like this :-)) It is something that was written in the first year of Wikipedia. I do not know exactly when, for it is anterior to the software phase II. Problably the first months. I love historical texts. I am glad to see that Christopher agreed with it. No one else made any comment though There is the problem. Three years ago, we had a statement of principles, while only one person was supporting the whole project Now, we are trying to set association, and we have none. Here is a sentence I would have loved to see in a global charter we would all have adopted together We agree to * respect the autonomy of member associations, but require of all adherence to WikiMedia mission, and commitment to quality, openness and respect of members ...or anything similar ...with above description of WikiMedia mission --------------------

Ray Saintonge a écrit: Ah, hummm, right. Good idea. Okay, I'll focus on saying controversial things in the next few weeks then :-) I suppose that is something I could do. Shall we make a controversial charter then ? ...ou...après tout...on est chez les fous :-)