Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote: Le Monday 21 June 2004 11:46, Anthere a �crit :
Malheureusement, je suis d'accord avec lui sur TOUS ces points :-) Mais surtout r�pond !!! Il est important que ces aspects soient �claircis et que nous puissions bien comprendre ce � quoi correspond une association locale.
C'est en contradiction avec une association Wikim�dia francophone. Quelle est ta position concernant une �ventuelle association Wikim�dia en Belgique wallone, en Suisse romande ou en Auvergne ? Je pense que c'est aussi important de se mettre d'accord vis � vis de la fondation que vis � vis de la future association francophone.
---------------
Ce n'est qu'en apparence contradictoire, car en ce qui me concerne, l'association NE DEVRAIT PAS s'appeler francophone, mais Wikim�dia fran�aise ou mieux WIKIMEDIA FRANCE, ce qui ote toute ambuiguit�. C'est ce que font les organisations internationales, qui ont des antennes dans un certain nombre de pays. Ces antennes ont une existence *l�gale*, et la l�galit� n'est pas li�e � une langue mais � une *localisation g�ographique*.
Je ne vois pas vraiment l'int�r�t d'une association auvergnate... mais bon...
J'esp�re vivement que d'ici l'an prochain ou peut �tre 2/3 ans, nous aurons des associations �quivalentes en Belgique et en Suisse. Et l'association en Belgique n'aidera pas uniquement le fran�ais, mais trois langues, donc en r�alit� aura pour objectif d'aider le Projet et de le promouvoir sur une �chelle bien plus grande que simplement la wikip�dia (plus wiktionary....) fran�aise. Notre pauvret� de raisonnement est li� au fait que nous n'avons v�ritablement qu'une seule langue sur notre territoire.
Il faut arr�ter de penser linguistique, mais puisque nous sommes sur un point l�gal, il faut penser limites juridiques, et la limite juridique est le *pays*. Qu'on le veuille ou non. L'avantage num�ro 1 de monter cette assoc est la d�ductibilit� fiscale, et ceci est li� au pays.
Si nous estimons que l'association en France est l'association FRANCOPHONE, nous nous comportons comme futurs "maitres" de toute autre association qui sera localis�e dans un pays francophone voisin. Et pourtant, les belges auront aussi un jour leur association, ne serait ce que pour b�n�ficier des r�ductions fiscales. Idem pour le canada. Nous serions la Francophone, alors seront ils l'assocation "Wikimedia Francophone II" ou la "Wikimedia Belgique", sous la houlette de la Francophone ? De quel droit nous arrogeons-nous nous, la France, de nous d�clarer le centre de la Francophonie ?
Arne a parfaitement raison. Cr�er des sous entit�s d'associations locales rel�ve de l'abh�ration. La Belgique s'appelera Wikimedia Belge, et l'association francophone ne doit pas avoir d'ing�rence sur son fonctionnement. Et comme le fait si bien remarquer Ryo, quid du management des serveurs ? Pourquoi aurions nous en France un droit sur la gestion des serveurs fran�ais servant la wikip�dia francophone, alors que la Belgique non ?
La r�ponse me semble simple. Le syst�me fonctionne actuellement parce que nous avons un unique propri�taire, et une unique �quipe de d�veloppeurs qui bossent ensemble pour le bien de tous. Et maintenant Shai en fait partie, donc nous ne pouvons plus pr�tendre que les d�cisions sont prises par de lointains d�veloppeurs ne prenant pas nos besoins en compte. Il faut arr�ter de fantasmer sur le fait que nous sommes "g�r�s" depuis l'autre bout du monde :-) Shaihulud, tous les d�veloppeurs allemands, Fire, Suisui et d'autres sont la preuve que l'�quipe est internationale. Angela et moi sommes la preuve que le board n'est pas uniquement am�ricain.
Il y a vraiment deux niveaux. Il y a l'organisation, qui est internationale. Et il y aura bient�t une myriade d'associations locales, nationales, qui � la fois aideront le projet dans son ensemble ET auront une autonomie locale. Le premier niveau ne connait pas de barri�res g�ographique, et de moins en moins linguistique. Le deuxi�me niveau doit se conformer aux limitations l�gales. Je crains qu'en cherchant � nous imposer comme zone de libre �change francophone, nous limitions fortement la future croissance des autres associations. Ce serait un mauvais cadeau � leur faire.
Cela n'emp�che pas l'association fran�aise d'aider tous les pays alentours. Il y a fort � parier que d'autres pays, peut �tre les italiens ? choisiront de donner leur argent en Europe, pour des raisons de facilit� de paiement.
Wikimedia francophone : sous couvert d'une pseudo �galit�, la France est encore en train une fois de plus, de se placer au centre de tout. Pouah ! Quelle horreur ! :-)
Il est �vident que tant que d'autres associations n'existeront pas sur le sol belge ou canadien, nous devons apporter notre aide dans ces pays, tout autant que sur le sol fran�ais, mais avons nous l'intention pour autant de les forcer � n'�tre que des sous entit�s de l'association francophone ?
Nous sommes un projet unique. Pas une collection d'entit�s qui vont chacunes tirer la couverture � elle. Les associations ne sont pas uniquement la pour payer les petits fours, mais pour aider le projet dans son ensemble, ie, aussi pour payer le hardware commun par exemple.
Je vais reprendre les points de Arne uns par uns
--------------------------
akl : * There should be as clear as possible a separation between projects and chapters because all projects are international and should remain widely self-determined.
ant : I agree. Chapters are here essentially for legal practicability. If this was not true, the current chapters would not be currently created in those two countries where some of the major wikipedia languages are spoken :-) But legal limits are national, not per language.
akl : * Chapters should not primarily spend their money for projects in a certain language but on all projects, as far as legally possible.
ant : I also agree. For two reasons. First we share a lot in common and we all have to participate to fund this common asset. If a local chapter raises money using the name of Wikimedia, then it should also participate the global Wikimedia operating costs. Not *only* on meeting cakes and promotional tee-shirts. Since money was raised in using the Wikimedia name, it also should help those places who do not have money income, so as to help distribution of knowledge in other places.
Incidently, in most poor nations, several languages are used, so it will make sense to publish in more than 1 language. Still, I doubt these countries will have chapters on their own before a long time. This is a global project. Do we want to help information get there ?
akl * There should be no sub-chapters on national level (i.e. Wikimedia Austria as a sub-chapter of Wikimedia Germany). Each national chapter should be directly assigned to the Foundation. Exceptions could be meaningful for regional chapters, which could be subordinated to the national chapters.
Ant : I very strongly agree. Which is why I would be deeply unhappy that we call our local chapter "francophone". This is an attempt of fairness that is uncalled for. I know that some people support this, because they want to make it clear that the french chapter will not help France only. I think this is perfectly obvious that we should try to be more global in our participation.
However, calling us francophone is bad. The next chapter in a french speaking country will likely be called by the country name, and I sure hope that it will not be submitted to the french chapter. We all wish here for equality, and I really see not why France will be once again, declared the official center of Francophonie. Wikimedia France has the merit of being descriptive.
It seems to me that any other name is bringing confusion.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Hi all,
First thanks Anthere for your input on this.
Le Monday 21 June 2004 13:02, Anthere a écrit :
akl : * There should be as clear as possible a separation between projects and chapters because all projects are international and should remain widely self-determined.
ant : I agree. Chapters are here essentially for legal practicability. If this was not true, the current chapters would not be currently created in those two countries where some of the major wikipedia languages are spoken :-) But legal limits are national, not per language.
akl : * Chapters should not primarily spend their money for projects in a certain language but on all projects, as far as legally possible.
ant : I also agree. For two reasons. First we share a lot in common and we all have to participate to fund this common asset. If a local chapter raises money using the name of Wikimedia, then it should also participate the global Wikimedia operating costs. Not *only* on meeting cakes and promotional tee-shirts. Since money was raised in using the Wikimedia name, it also should help those places who do not have money income, so as to help distribution of knowledge in other places.
I agree that, for example, money raise in France should be used to help the project as a whole.
Incidently, in most poor nations, several languages are used, so it will make sense to publish in more than 1 language. Still, I doubt these countries will have chapters on their own before a long time. This is a global project. Do we want to help information get there ?
akl * There should be no sub-chapters on national level (i.e. Wikimedia Austria as a sub-chapter of Wikimedia Germany). Each national chapter should be directly assigned to the Foundation. Exceptions could be meaningful for regional chapters, which could be subordinated to the national chapters.
First I think that it is the local people who should decide how they will be assigned to the foundation. I can imagine that, at some later date, some people from Arkansas, or Scotland, or Auvergne, or Baden-Württemberg, or ..., would like to create an organisation to promote Wikimedia projects to their local school / library / whatever, and it should be their decision to do so or not.
Ant : I very strongly agree. Which is why I would be deeply unhappy that we call our local chapter "francophone". This is an attempt of fairness that is uncalled for. I know that some people support this, because they want to make it clear that the french chapter will not help France only. I think this is perfectly obvious that we should try to be more global in our participation.
I see a contradiction here. It's especially *because* this chapter is not for France only that it should be called "francophone", and not Wikimedia France. There are already people from Belgium and Switzerland who want to work within this chapter. And they rightfully object that this chapter is called Wikimedia France. Which doesn't mean that, at a later date, people from Switzerland or Belgium, could not create a local chapter in those places. Then these local chapters will have to decide how they want to be assigned to the foundation.
However, calling us francophone is bad. The next chapter in a french speaking country will likely be called by the country name, and I sure hope that it will not be submitted to the french chapter. We all wish here for equality, and I really see not why France will be once again, declared the official center of Francophonie. Wikimedia France has the merit of being descriptive.
It seems to me that any other name is bringing confusion.
I think we have the same objectives. But Wikimedia France is not an adequate name, because, for the forseable future, this chapter will not be acting only in France.
Best wishes, Yann
Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Ant : I very strongly agree. Which is why I would be deeply unhappy that we call our local chapter "francophone". This is an attempt of fairness that is uncalled for. I know that some people support this, because they want to make it clear that the french chapter will not help France only. I think this is perfectly obvious that we should try to be more global in our participation.
I see a contradiction here. It's especially *because* this chapter is not for France only that it should be called "francophone", and not Wikimedia France. There are already people from Belgium and Switzerland who want to work within this chapter. And they rightfully object that this chapter is called Wikimedia France. Which doesn't mean that, at a later date, people from Switzerland or Belgium, could not create a local chapter in those places. Then these local chapters will have to decide how they want to be assigned to the foundation.
However, calling us francophone is bad. The next chapter in a french speaking country will likely be called by the country name, and I sure hope that it will not be submitted to the french chapter. We all wish here for equality, and I really see not why France will be once again, declared the official center of Francophonie. Wikimedia France has the merit of being descriptive.
It seems to me that any other name is bringing confusion.
I think we have the same objectives. But Wikimedia France is not an adequate name, because, for the forseable future, this chapter will not be acting only in France.
Best wishes, Yann
-------------------------
Sorry, but to my opinion, the contradiction is precisely on your side. I know that I am a minority on this issue, but I would like to say that I think this name is probably one of the reason why we are *right now* confused on the role of the association.
When I say it should be called Wikim�dia France, I use a fact. I give a descriptive name. The description of its legal localisation, and there is no objection to say that it will be legally created in France. It is a fact, it is a *certainty*. It is not pov :-) It is a reality. Hence, the name does not hold contradiction with the description of the association itself. It will be *an association created under the french law*.
On the other hand, you object that we should call it Wikimedia Francophone, because *in the foreseable future, it will not be acting in France only*.
I agree. Well, I hope it is so. I am not sure it will happen. This is not a fact, this is a wish. Perhaps it will come true, perhaps not. It is the future, and it is just a wish, nothing else. But I hope it will happen. I do not know exactly why, but I think that canadians will be disappointed though. Just a feeling :-)
Second, if I perfectly agree it should not be acting in France only, this name you are trying to impose also implies it will *primarily* act to promote the project in french-speaking countries only. It is not a name based on fact, it is a name that holds a very strong connotation. It openly says it "the goal of this association is to help french speaking projects". And you actually say it yourself, it is to help promoting french language and set a miror or working server in France. In short, it is openly dissociating itself from the global project. It is openly supporting only part of the project. Not the project globally.
This is why Wikimedia francophone is not an adequate name to my opinion. And this is precisely why we are currently all realising we *do not* have the same perception of what should be the association and which roles it should have.
And I want to insist that I really do not want to exclude non french people here. Some of my favorite french-speaking are not french :-) And they will be very precious in the french association :-) I think the french association is just part of the global scheme, and it is obvious nearby countries will be served till they have an association on their own and people from all nationalities are welcome to help. I am sorry Yann, but I just think you are trying to make it appear more political than it should be. And I won't support that with happiness. Just my opinion.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
I know that not everyone will found this association to be the best model, but I think this is the nearest of what I can imagine from structural considerations.
Go the www.unicef.org
This organisation pledged to help ALL children, all over the world.
When you click on "support Unicef", here is what you get :
http://www.unicef.org/support/index.html
Now, click on "donate now"
You are prompted to select your country of choice
Choose "France". Here is the website in french language. It is still the Unicef, not the francophone Unicef. You are *still* supporting a Global Project.
You know you will help support people hurt by a cyclon in Madagascar, there are people hurt by war in Soudan, hearquake in Iran.
And jeeeee, with 30 euros, you will help purchase 100 schools textbook !
You also get a tax deduction. 60% of the amount will be removed from your income tax, up to 470 euros. This is possible only because you will pay directly in France. If you had chosen Madagascar, you would not have had any tax deduction because you are not german citizen.
Here, http://www.unicef.asso.fr/index.cfm?id=index_adherez.cfm
I see that I will become member of the Unicef France
And here is what I see
S'engager � participer r�guli�rement par une adh�sion, soutient directement l'action de l'UNICEF France en faveur de l'UNICEF. Cette cotisation annuelle contribue aux frais de fonctionnement de l'association elle-m�me et permet de d�gager le maximum de fonds revers�s par l'UNICEF France � l'UNICEF au titre des dons.
This fee will directly help the action of Unicef France in favor on Unicef. This annual fee will help support the cost of the local association functioning Unicef France, and the remaining will be directly sent from the Unicef France to Unicef, as donations. And likely, somewhere, an international team is working on the Iran earthquake issue and will make good use of your money.
--------------
This is my perception of what a local association could begin to be. Not a complicated set of sub-entities, which will help only the last camping flood in the south of the country.
grumble grumble :-)
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
Anthere, can you copy your answers to wikifr-l@wikipedia.org ? I think that it's interesting for the French speaking people who didn't subscribe to the foundation-l@wikimedia.org list.
Le Monday 21 June 2004 14:22, Anthere a écrit :
Sorry, but to my opinion, the contradiction is precisely on your side. I know that I am a minority on this issue, but I would like to say that I think this name is probably one of the reason why we are *right now* confused on the role of the association.
When I say it should be called Wikimédia France, I use a fact. I give a descriptive name. The description of its legal localisation, and there is no objection to say that it will be legally created in France. It is a fact, it is a *certainty*. It is not pov :-) It is a reality. Hence, the name does not hold contradiction with the description of the association itself. It will be *an association created under the french law*.
On the other hand, you object that we should call it Wikimedia Francophone, because *in the foreseable future, it will not be acting in France only*.
I agree. Well, I hope it is so. I am not sure it will happen. This is not a fact, this is a wish. Perhaps it will come true, perhaps not. It is the future, and it is just a wish, nothing else. But I hope it will happen. I do not know exactly why, but I think that canadians will be disappointed though. Just a feeling :-)
Second, if I perfectly agree it should not be acting in France only, this name you are trying to impose also implies it will *primarily* act to promote the project in french-speaking countries only. It is not a name based on fact, it is a name that holds a very strong connotation. It openly says it "the goal of this association is to help french speaking projects". And you actually say it yourself, it is to help promoting french language and set a miror or working server in France. In short, it is openly dissociating itself from the global project. It is openly supporting only part of the project. Not the project globally.
In fact, this chapter will be active in French speaking countries only. I don't think it will be used to promote the project or raise money elsewhere. So "francophone" just explains where the chapter will be active.
But if the chapter is used to promote regional languages as well, so why not called it just "association WIkimédia"? I don't think it will be confused with the foundation.
This is why Wikimedia francophone is not an adequate name to my opinion. And this is precisely why we are currently all realising we *do not* have the same perception of what should be the association and which roles it should have.
And I want to insist that I really do not want to exclude non french people here. Some of my favorite french-speaking are not french :-) And they will be very precious in the french association :-) I think the french association is just part of the global scheme, and it is obvious nearby countries will be served till they have an association on their own and people from all nationalities are welcome to help. I am sorry Yann, but I just think you are trying to make it appear more political than it should be. And I won't support that with happiness. Just my opinion.
Yann
In fact, this chapter will be active in French speaking countries only. I don't think it will be used to promote the project or raise money elsewhere. So "francophone" just explains where the chapter will be active.
But if the chapter is used to promote regional languages as well, so why not called it just "association WIkim�dia"? I don't think it will be confused with the foundation.
-----------
This name is fine by me Yann. But we still do not agree on the association roles. I am not sure whether it matters or not. I think we should discuss the "r�glement int�rieur" before the association is created, so as to define what "affiliation" mean.
ant
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org