I have put together a first draught of the membership section of the
proposed by-laws at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Canada/Membership
This is a very rough draught, but it puts out an initial structure.
Please feel free to comment in the alternatives section below, or on the
talk page. I would prefer that you avoid making changes to the draught
itself, as this could make it difficult to maintain the structure of the
article. I'll try to incorporate ideas as they are presented. When
suggestions stall I hope to start a poll to see if there is indeed
support for this section.
Ec
One of the challenges in writing the by-laws is the structure of the
Board of Directors.
1. How big should the Board be? If it's too big it may not be able to
do its work efficiently; if it's too small there may not be enough
people to do the work. The Foundation board started with five members
but has needed to expand since it was established.
2. How do we best integrate regional and provincial interests.
Eventually we should support the growth of sub-chapters but that could
take a few years before it can be accomplished across the country.
These sub-chapters can be represented at the federal level. Few people
outside of Toronto would want the board to be Toronto dominated.
3. How do we choose directors? A few should probably be appointed to
bring desired skills to the Board, but they should remain a minority.
How many should be chosen by the general membership, and how? How many
should be chosen by the online community. Can non-Canadians participate
as members of the online community?
Other issues may also arise.
Ray
Perhaps this isn't the best time to create a legal entity around
Wikimedia Canada.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070419.wwikipedia0420/…
Could this guy add us to his lawsuit, even though we have no control
over the content of the site, even less so than the Wikimedia
Foundation does? Under US law, the Foundation is fine if they comply
and take down offending content at request of the offendee, but we'd
be under Canadian law, and I don't know if like provisions exist.
Nick
Salut-hi, everyone! Many of you have already received personal
invitations to attend RecentChangesCamp Montreal; for those of you who
we've missed, I wanted to send this broadcast message. I realize it's
slightly off-topic but I think it's of general interest to
Wikimedia-involved people in Canada. Apologies for dupes; feel free to
chew me out off-list.
My name is Evan Prodromou; I'm a Web technologist, writer, Free
Software/Culture advocate and entrepreneur. Among other things, I'm the
founder of Wikitravel (http://wikitravel.org/), the Open Content,
wiki-edited travel guide. I'm also a MediaWiki developer and a Wikipedia
en: administrator. I've been a Wikipedian since 2002.
I'm writing as one of the volunteer organizers of RecentChangesCamp
Montreal. RecentChangesCamp is a world-wide "unconference" for wiki
technologists, wiki users and wiki admins. Also invited are people from
related technology and community practises, as we look for common ground
on community, collaboration, and self-organizing behaviour. The event is
free of charge for all participants. The previous two RecentChangesCamp
events in Portland have been extremely fun and interesting for
participants.
http://www.recentchangescamp.org/
RecentChangesCamp Montreal ("RoCoCoCamp") will be held in Montreal from
18-20 May 2007. It will be a three-day conference with the agenda set by
the participants, using [[Open Space Technology]].
http://www.rocococamp.info/
No keynotes, no hours-long slide presentations, no conference tracks:
the emphasis of RecentChangesCamp is on bringing together smart,
passionate, talented people for productive, peer-to-peer talks.
People involved with or concerned about the Wikimedia Foundation and WMF
activities in Canada are strongly encouraged to attend. Not only will
there be opportunities to talk about and work on Foundation issues with
other WMF participants, but there will also be participants from other
non-profit and for-profit wiki organizations as well. It's a great
opportunity for sharing WMF experiences and for gathering information
about the rest of the wiki world.
If you would like to attend, please sign up on our wiki:
http://www.rocococamp.info/Participants
We're arranging lodging for a variety of budgets (from couch-surfing to
the Hyatt). Travel to Montreal for most Canadians will be relatively
inexpensive, given the great variety of rail and air options.
Please check out our wiki if you have any questions; also feel free to
contact anyone in our all-volunteer organizing group. You can write to
me directly or call my cell phone (+1-514-554-3826).
Thanks,
-Evan
________________________________________________________________________
Evan Prodromou <evan(a)prodromou.name>
http://evan.prodromou.name/
Hello,
I have talked some days ago on IRC with Gerald ([[v:User:Historybuff]])
about the creation of the Canadian chapter. I would like both to express my
joy about this project and to say that Wikimedia France would be very glad
to collaborate with Wikimedia Canada in the future.
I am sure all existing chapters will be glad to share the experience they've
got across the years, but as a member of the French chapter board, I wanted
to say it explicitly :)
If you want to collaborate on any project, please let us know. There is some
existing promotional material, and more are on their way.
The French chapter is also organizing the « Premier colloque francophone sur
Wikipédia » (its Wikipedia academy) in October in Paris and we would be glad
to see members of the brand new Canadian chapter.
Welcome aboard, live long and prosper \\\//
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have
imagined." Henry David Thoreau
Current this list has public archiving--you don't have to be a member
to access the old messages.
We could have private archiving, which forces people to register, and
thus messages aren't indexed by Google.
I don't see any reason to have private archiving, but while I'm going
through the preferences, thought I'd bring it up.
Nick
Again! My reply to the list went to only one person!
Delphine Ménard wrote:
>On 4/18/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>I have no problem with the Foundation's policy that a national chapter
>>should be membership based, but just who will be a member for legal
>>purposes still needs to be defined. In some respects there is a
>>romantic attraction to having every Canadian who contributes to either
>>the English or French Wikipedia treated as a member, but that would be
>>totally impractical. Membership can be based on making a positive
>>statement that one wants to become a member, perhaps accompanied by a
>>membership fee; this would also need to be accompanied by a section
>>about when memberships terminate.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe a little insight as to what others chapters do may help here. I
>am not familiar with Canadian law, so I can't say that this fits, but
>here are the bulk of membership options that have been developped by
>other chapters.
>
>1) membership tied to the payment of a member fee
>Anyone who wishes to join can join
>=> members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which
>elects the board
>
>2) membership tied to the activity in the Wikimedia projects
>Only people with a record of activity in the projects can join. Others
>may have to be presented to the board for acceptation.
>=> members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which
>elects the board
>
>3) membership is broken down in different categories depending on the chapter
>=> voting (active) members
>=>supporting members (pay a fee but don't vote)
>=> honorary members (pay a greater fee and vote, or don't vote)
>=> members that are companies (may vote or not vote)
>
>4) members each need to be approved by the board
>
>5) members may be refused by the board (veto option)
>
>Almost all of the existing structures have an elected board, means of
>election vary depending on the status adopted.
>
Thanks for the response. Though I find that there are practical
difficulties with No. 2, I can basically live with any of these options.
It would be very easy for me to pick one of these, write the bylaws, and
do everything else to get the chapter incorporated. The problem is
getting others to participate by saying which option they prefer and
why. I know from past experience with other organizations that whenever
the topic of writing bylaws comes up people can't run away fast enough.
It comes down to how long does one wait for responses before just going
ahead and doing it, and letting them squawk about bad by-laws later.
Ec
Thank you for replying to this and telling me if the settings have
been changed as needed. (ie. reply to list rather than reply to
sender)
I had Mark look into it.
Thanx
Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
Hello everybody,
I post nothing since the begining of the mail list, but I read all your
mails and tougth about that. Sorry for my English by the way, I understand
very well but I'm a little bit poor when it's time to ''produce'' something
an English...
I prefer the option number 2. But we have to be realistic : we need money
for the foundation. Because of that, I think we should take option number 3.
Option number 1 seems to be a bad idea, because if all the Wikipedia
projects are free, why the foundation should be entirely not free?
Have a nice day,
Guillaume Paradis.
2007/4/20, wikimedia-ca-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org <
wikimedia-ca-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>:
>
> Send Wikimedia-ca mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-ca(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-ca
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-ca-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-ca-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-ca digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. [Fwd: Re: On the subject of members] (Ray Saintonge)
> 2. Re: [Fwd: Re: On the subject of members] (Padraic Ryan)
>
>
> ---------- Message transféré ----------
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
> To: Wikimedia-ca(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:16:41 -0700
> Subject: [Wikimedia-Canada] [Fwd: Re: On the subject of members]
> Again! My reply to the list went to only one person!
>
> Delphine Ménard wrote:
>
> >On 4/18/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >
> >>I have no problem with the Foundation's policy that a national chapter
> >>should be membership based, but just who will be a member for legal
> >>purposes still needs to be defined. In some respects there is a
> >>romantic attraction to having every Canadian who contributes to either
> >>the English or French Wikipedia treated as a member, but that would be
> >>totally impractical. Membership can be based on making a positive
> >>statement that one wants to become a member, perhaps accompanied by a
> >>membership fee; this would also need to be accompanied by a section
> >>about when memberships terminate.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Maybe a little insight as to what others chapters do may help here. I
> >am not familiar with Canadian law, so I can't say that this fits, but
> >here are the bulk of membership options that have been developped by
> >other chapters.
> >
> >1) membership tied to the payment of a member fee
> >Anyone who wishes to join can join
> >=> members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which
> >elects the board
> >
> >2) membership tied to the activity in the Wikimedia projects
> >Only people with a record of activity in the projects can join. Others
> >may have to be presented to the board for acceptation.
> >=> members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which
> >elects the board
> >
> >3) membership is broken down in different categories depending on the
> chapter
> >=> voting (active) members
> >=>supporting members (pay a fee but don't vote)
> >=> honorary members (pay a greater fee and vote, or don't vote)
> >=> members that are companies (may vote or not vote)
> >
> >4) members each need to be approved by the board
> >
> >5) members may be refused by the board (veto option)
> >
> >Almost all of the existing structures have an elected board, means of
> >election vary depending on the status adopted.
> >
> Thanks for the response. Though I find that there are practical
> difficulties with No. 2, I can basically live with any of these options.
>
> It would be very easy for me to pick one of these, write the bylaws, and
> do everything else to get the chapter incorporated. The problem is
> getting others to participate by saying which option they prefer and
> why. I know from past experience with other organizations that whenever
> the topic of writing bylaws comes up people can't run away fast enough.
>
> It comes down to how long does one wait for responses before just going
> ahead and doing it, and letting them squawk about bad by-laws later.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Message transféré ----------
> From: "Padraic Ryan" <padraic.j.ryan(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia-ca(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:20:21 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-Canada] [Fwd: Re: On the subject of members]
> My two cents: members should meet (1) and (2) - fee payment and
> involvement with a Wikimedia project. On the one hand, some kind of
> off-line interaction to demonstrate commitment is a good idea (it
> could be nominal, something like $10), but on the other hand, members
> should be people involved with WM projects. Maybe a minimum edit
> count, like with the Board elections?
>
> Padraic
>
> On 19/04/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> > Again! My reply to the list went to only one person!
> >
> > Delphine Ménard wrote:
> >
> > >On 4/18/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > >
> > >>I have no problem with the Foundation's policy that a national chapter
> > >>should be membership based, but just who will be a member for legal
> > >>purposes still needs to be defined. In some respects there is a
> > >>romantic attraction to having every Canadian who contributes to either
> > >>the English or French Wikipedia treated as a member, but that would be
> > >>totally impractical. Membership can be based on making a positive
> > >>statement that one wants to become a member, perhaps accompanied by a
> > >>membership fee; this would also need to be accompanied by a section
> > >>about when memberships terminate.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Maybe a little insight as to what others chapters do may help here. I
> > >am not familiar with Canadian law, so I can't say that this fits, but
> > >here are the bulk of membership options that have been developped by
> > >other chapters.
> > >
> > >1) membership tied to the payment of a member fee
> > >Anyone who wishes to join can join
> > >=> members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which
> > >elects the board
> > >
> > >2) membership tied to the activity in the Wikimedia projects
> > >Only people with a record of activity in the projects can join. Others
> > >may have to be presented to the board for acceptation.
> > >=> members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which
> > >elects the board
> > >
> > >3) membership is broken down in different categories depending on the
> chapter
> > >=> voting (active) members
> > >=>supporting members (pay a fee but don't vote)
> > >=> honorary members (pay a greater fee and vote, or don't vote)
> > >=> members that are companies (may vote or not vote)
> > >
> > >4) members each need to be approved by the board
> > >
> > >5) members may be refused by the board (veto option)
> > >
> > >Almost all of the existing structures have an elected board, means of
> > >election vary depending on the status adopted.
> > >
> > Thanks for the response. Though I find that there are practical
> > difficulties with No. 2, I can basically live with any of these options.
> >
> > It would be very easy for me to pick one of these, write the bylaws, and
> > do everything else to get the chapter incorporated. The problem is
> > getting others to participate by saying which option they prefer and
> > why. I know from past experience with other organizations that whenever
> > the topic of writing bylaws comes up people can't run away fast enough.
> >
> > It comes down to how long does one wait for responses before just going
> > ahead and doing it, and letting them squawk about bad by-laws later.
> >
> > Ec
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-ca mailing list
> > Wikimedia-ca(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-ca
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-ca mailing list
> Wikimedia-ca(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-ca
>
>
--
Guillaume Paradis
paradis.g(a)gmail.com
On 4/18/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> I have no problem with the Foundation's policy that a national chapter
> should be membership based, but just who will be a member for legal
> purposes still needs to be defined. In some respects there is a
> romantic attraction to having every Canadian who contributes to either
> the English or French Wikipedia treated as a member, but that would be
> totally impractical. Membership can be based on making a positive
> statement that one wants to become a member, perhaps accompanied by a
> membership fee; this would also need to be accompanied by a section
> about when memberships terminate.
Maybe a little insight as to what others chapters do may help here. I
am not familiar with Canadian law, so I can't say that this fits, but
here are the bulk of membership options that have been developped by
other chapters.
1) membership tied to the payment of a member fee
Anyone who wishes to join can join
=> members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which
elects the board
2) membership tied to the activity in the Wikimedia projects
Only people with a record of activity in the projects can join. Others
may have to be presented to the board for acceptation.
=> members are given the right to vote in the General Assembly which
elects the board
3) membership is broken down in different categories depending on the chapter
=> voting (active) members
=>supporting members (pay a fee but don't vote)
=> honorary members (pay a greater fee and vote, or don't vote)
=> members that are companies (may vote or not vote)
4) members each need to be approved by the board
5) members may be refused by the board (veto option)
Almost all of the existing structures have an elected board, means of
election vary depending on the status adopted.
Hope this helps,
Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.