I am top posting and breaking the thread on purpose, as I am not trying to address all the concerns in this thread, but rather trying to give a little background and a different perspective.
I have followed, in my position as local chapter coordinator, the different steps in the founding of both the Vereniging (member association) and Stichting (Foundation). For those who are puzzled by this double organisational background, let me give you some explanation.
A Vereniging is a member organisation, much on the model of all other Wikimedia Chapters. Its board is elected by the general assembly, made up of members who pay their fees to be part of the organisation. Note that members *have* to be part of the Wikimedia projects to be members of the organisation. Which, if anything, puts the power in the hands of *the community*.
A Stichting is a Foundation, much on the model of our Wikimedia Foundation. It has a board that is appointed. One of the members of this board is appointed by the Verijniging. The reason given for the founding of this Stichting is that in NL, sponsors, and particularly governement or other big non-profit organisation, are less enclined handing out large sums of money to member organisations, as their "stability" is not as important as that of Stichting.
In the process of the founding of both, there was already much discussion, that discussion was open (the nl.wikimedia.org wiki is open to whoever wants to discuss). People there voiced their concerns, including me.
As I understand it, the Vereniging will be the primary point of entry for any deals with sponsors that may come to Wikimedia Nederland, the Stichting will be used as a "buffer" for great-scale projects involving lots of money, potentially employing people etc.. In that respect, I believe that the choices made were the good ones.
That's for the background.
Now. I have read in this thread many counter-truths and misleading statements. Let us make one thing very very clear.
Chapters, whatever their form, color or shape, are not responsible for the content of Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects. Never. Ever. At best, they will increase the pool of editors through promotion for the projects. At worst, they have to relay the problems that they are aware of "may be problematic content" (potential legal issues) to the Wikimedia Foundation. That's it. There's no *editor* Wikimedia France* or *Wikimedia Polska* or *Wikimedia Nederland*. There are editors who pertain only to the projects, there are editors who pertain to both the project and the organisation. End of the story.
Allow me to doubt that any of the board members of Wikimedia Nederland blocked anyone on the Dutch Wikipedia "on behalf of the Wikimedia Nederland". If they did block anyone or edit, it was in their responsibility as editors or admins, only answerable to the community. Pretending the contrary is mixing oil and water. It simply does not work.
As far as the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, the bylaws of both the Vereniging and the Stichting are very clear, and leave no room for interpretation as to whether either is ever going to take over the Wikimedia projects. They are not.
This is for my official statement.
Now, for those of you who have felt left out of the process, I will say just this, going from a virtual project to an organisation is not always an easy process. As a matter of fact, I have had the impression that it was more painful for the Dutch than it has been for any of the other chapters. However, I am confident that if you feel you need to change things, you are empowered to do so.
*Backing down* from the founding process and *then* criticizing, is, in my opinion, definitely not constructive. There is a wiki, it is open, there is an organisation, you can become a member. The best you can start with is making sure you have a voice in the Vereniging to change things from the inside. It starts here: http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ledenlijst.
Cheers,
Delphine
-- ~notafish
2006/4/25, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
Now. I have read in this thread many counter-truths and misleading statements. Let us make one thing very very clear.
Chapters, whatever their form, color or shape, are not responsible for the content of Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects. Never. Ever. At best, they will increase the pool of editors through promotion for the projects. At worst, they have to relay the problems that they are aware of "may be problematic content" (potential legal issues) to the Wikimedia Foundation. That's it. There's no *editor* Wikimedia France* or *Wikimedia Polska* or *Wikimedia Nederland*. There are editors who pertain only to the projects, there are editors who pertain to both the project and the organisation. End of the story.
I may agree with that, and you, but what about the Vereniging and Stichting themselves? One reason this all started up is that the Vereniging explicitly states in their statutes that it does not have influence on the contents of the wikis. The Stichting as far as possible copied the statutes of the Vereniging, but this point was apparently on purpose left out.
*Backing down* from the founding process and *then* criticizing, is, in my opinion, definitely not constructive. There is a wiki, it is open, there is an organisation, you can become a member. The best you can start with is making sure you have a voice in the Vereniging to change things from the inside. It starts here: http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ledenlijst.
The criticism is mostly directed to the Stichting, not the Vereniging. Being a member of the Vereniging will not influence the Stichting.
As for me backing down from the founding process: There was a conflict between two members in an early stage. I offered to interfere as a mediator. This was just starting up when the other mediator told me that because I wrote myself on nl.wikimedia.org, I could not be independent as a mediator, and thus could not mediate. After that I left the whole project in disgust. It's not the kind of thing I want to hear. Apart from that, at the time I left it was clear that a great majority was in favour of a Vereniging. Yet some people somehow decided to create both.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
On 4/25/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2006/4/25, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
Now. I have read in this thread many counter-truths and misleading statements. Let us make one thing very very clear.
Chapters, whatever their form, color or shape, are not responsible for the content of Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects. Never. Ever. At best, they will increase the pool of editors through promotion for the projects. At worst, they have to relay the problems that they are aware of "may be problematic content" (potential legal issues) to the Wikimedia Foundation. That's it. There's no *editor* Wikimedia France* or *Wikimedia Polska* or *Wikimedia Nederland*. There are editors who pertain only to the projects, there are editors who pertain to both the project and the organisation. End of the story.
I may agree with that, and you, but what about the Vereniging and Stichting themselves? One reason this all started up is that the Vereniging explicitly states in their statutes that it does not have influence on the contents of the wikis. The Stichting as far as possible copied the statutes of the Vereniging, but this point was apparently on purpose left out.
Apparently I have not been clear enough. This is not about you or me agreeing on anything. It is a fact. A plain fact.
__Wikimedia chapters are not responsible for the content of the Wikimedia projects__
And that is the case, whether or not it is in their bylaws. If it is, fine, if it is not, it does *not* make them responsible. Bylaws, statutes or whatever those are called of an organisation are a contract between the founders and potentially future members of an organisation, following a specific local set of laws.
Bylaws and statutes are *not* a contract with the authors of the Wikimedia projects, in Dutch or any other language, they are not a contract with the Wikimedia Foundation. They do not give any right to the chapter organisation over the content of any project.
The fact that something is *not in the bylaws* does *not* give a power/responsibility that the organisation *does not* have in the first place.
I hope this is clearer now.
Delphine
-- ~notafish
On 4/25/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2006/4/25, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
As for me backing down from the founding process:
[snip]
Ah, and I forgot. Just in case it wasn't clear, I was not addressing *your* email in particular, but all of those in this thread on both wikipedia-l and foundation-l together. The email I was top posting on was actually Muijz. Gmail makes it sometimes complicated to follow the right threads at the right time ;-)
Cheers :-)
Delphine -- ~notafish
Delphine Ménard wrote:
I am top posting and breaking the thread on purpose, as I am not trying to address all the concerns in this thread, but rather trying to give a little background and a different perspective.
I have followed, in my position as local chapter coordinator, the different steps in the founding of both the Vereniging (member association) and Stichting (Foundation). For those who are puzzled by this double organisational background, let me give you some explanation.
A Vereniging is a member organisation, much on the model of all other Wikimedia Chapters. Its board is elected by the general assembly, made up of members who pay their fees to be part of the organisation. Note that members *have* to be part of the Wikimedia projects to be members of the organisation. Which, if anything, puts the power in the hands of *the community*.
This is absolutely contradictory to what RonaldB writes. HE writes:
(http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:De_kroeg#Een_poging_tot_samenvatting) "Iedereen, er is geen enkele beperking, kan lid worden. Zelfs mensen die nergens aktief zijn. Nederlanders en niet-Nederlanders, enz."
"Everybody, there is no limitation, can become a member. Even people who are active nowhere. Dutch people, non Dutch people."
And this is just the first of a couple of contradictions between what you write in English and what RonaldB writes in Dutch. You write the rosy "it is al ok, trust us version" . RonaldB writes how he wants it to be .... which is the reason why more and more people do not trust it ..... version! Have you ever read RonaldB's how he sees Wikipedia? See (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:RonaldB/De_wiki_als_systeem ...... The wiki as a system) All his statements in there are contradictionary to what the current system is. Basically he wants to create a Wikistate. With wikiparliament etc. He has openly said before he wants to use a foundation to reach this goal.
There were 5 meetings. In the notules of the 4th meeting we can see: RonaldB proposes a foundation to be started as well. But it was decided to wait with that untill after the starting of an association. In the notules of the 5th and last meeting all of a sudden it pops up again. RonaldB proposes creation of a foundation and all of a sudden everyone agrees! After which RonaldB goes of quickly and does this.
Now RonaldB was the one registering both the foundation and association, he is the only person in the board of both, they are both registered in the place that he lives. With RonaldB's openly stated goals of a totally different future for the projects, him taking the lead in everyhing and him refusing to responding to questions or delaying his response ..... he waited with answering for a week! Untill people threatened to start a desysopping against him. then he all of a sudden responded. A person who acts like this ..... how can I trust him or her?
Apart from that RonaldB doesn't answer questions. He writes around them. I know the writing style very very very well. I have studied on it a long time ago when I still was in school. No direct answers anywhere, just repeating of statements.
In short this whole thing has gone against the explicit wishes in a vote of the community. A majority when asked was for association. Almost everybody was against the foundation form. Now I know their is a request to the board to recognize both foundation and association. I feel that if for now the board recognizes the association so the community has more time to look at the foundation that would be a way to go forward. After all the forming of an association was discussed for a year. The foundation was just pushed through without a discussion!
Waerth/Walter
On 4/25/06, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Delphine Ménard wrote:
A Vereniging is a member organisation, much on the model of all other Wikimedia Chapters. Its board is elected by the general assembly, made up of members who pay their fees to be part of the organisation. Note that members *have* to be part of the Wikimedia projects to be members of the organisation. Which, if anything, puts the power in the hands of *the community*.
This is absolutely contradictory to what RonaldB writes. HE writes:
(http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:De_kroeg#Een_poging_tot_samenvatting) "Iedereen, er is geen enkele beperking, kan lid worden. Zelfs mensen die nergens aktief zijn. Nederlanders en niet-Nederlanders, enz."
"Everybody, there is no limitation, can become a member. Even people who are active nowhere. Dutch people, non Dutch people."
Probably my mistake. I had in mind that the Vereniging only accepted people who were part of the Wikimedia projects. Read my interventions on the English translations of the bylaws, I was personally against it. And all the better if other people can become members. My experience proves that sometimes, people who have never edited a wiki can be excellent members of the organisation.
[snip]
Untill people threatened to start a desysopping against him. then he all of a sudden responded. A person who acts like this ..... how can I trust him or her?
[snip]
I continue to see this mixing of the "project" with the "organisation", I believe it is a mistake. I am sorry, but you don't "desysop" someone for something they have done in real life. You do if they've abused their rights and duties as editor or administrator.
I do not read Dutch, so I cannot refer to all the conversations you point to and make my own opinion. I tried to give another perspective on the matter and address the points I could address.
I am available to continue this discussion privately, or with the chapters committee where relevant. I do not wish to engage further in this debate here, as I believe this is a matter of the Dutch to settle, it is they who should come up with a satisfying answer for all parties involved, not those of us who don't read Dutch, nor have all the facts.
Cheers,
Delphine -- ~notafish
I am available to continue this discussion privately, or with the chapters committee where relevant. I do not wish to engage further in this debate here, as I believe this is a matter of the Dutch to settle, it is they who should come up with a satisfying answer for all parties involved, not those of us who don't read Dutch, nor have all the facts.
Cheers,
Delphine
~notafish
Thank you anyway that you are trying to help out. It is a matter to solve within the nl community yes. But the problem is if they stay deaf and do not answer the questions directly and then the board acknowledges them it is kinda a "fait accompli" isn't it? I again want to urge RonaldB to please answer the questions we asked (and no it is not just me asking them, as usual I am just one of the more vocal ones).
Waerth/Walter
Delphine Ménard wrote:
I am available to continue this discussion privately, or with the chapters committee where relevant. I do not wish to engage further in this debate here, as I believe this is a matter of the Dutch to settle, it is they who should come up with a satisfying answer for all parties involved, not those of us who don't read Dutch, nor have all the facts.
Cheers,
Delphine
~notafish
I am not entirely sure. It is certainly the matter for the Dutch to settle... but at the same time... there are requests for the board to approve the relationship between the two organisations and the Foundation. So it may be best that we are informed before voting...
Ant
On 4/25/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I am not entirely sure. It is certainly the matter for the Dutch to settle... but at the same time... there are requests for the board to approve the relationship between the two organisations and the Foundation. So it may be best that we are informed before voting...
Yes, this is exactly what I meant. We need more information, but it seems to me it is coming here in a very individual and unstructured manner. And this what I meant when I said I was ready to continue this conversation in the appropriate places.
Any formal request put to the chapters committee (address on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee), will of course be heard and managed appropriately.
Cheers,
Delphine
-- ~notafish
Hoi, It is a sad situation that a perceived lack of communication gets us to a state where the long awaited Dutch chapter is even more delayed. The people who have set up both the "vereniging" and the "stichting" have done this to set up an organisation in the Netherlands. To get there, someone had to do it. Now there is an organisation; people can become member of the vereniging. It is for the members of the "vereninging" to choose the board of there organisation. When people are concerned, all they have to do is become a member go to the meetings and choose or confirm the members of the board.
When the board of the vereniging and the board of the stiching find that they do not / can not cooperate, that will be the appropriate time to discuss with the Wikimedia Foundation how to resolve the situation.
On the nl.wikipedia many moderators have been confirmed for another year. Both Oscar and Galwaygirl (the chairman and the secretary of the vereniging io) have received the trust of the Dutch Wikipedia community. When some people of the nl.wikipedia community want to clarify the relation between this project and the Dutch chapter, they find their answer either in the bylaws of the chapter or in the bylaws of the project.
Practically, the first "ledenvergadering" has to be convened. This will be the first time where members of the vereniging can decide on how to move forward. This will be for the members of the chapter and not for the Dutch Wikipedia community to decide. This meeting will be public.
When people who do not want to become members and are part of a Dutch project want to discuss the relation with the Dutch and eventually a Belgian chapter, they can do so in their project and not bother the rest of the Wiki world.
PS The Dutch chapter is there to be active in the Netherlands. It wants to do good for any and all projects. It is not and should not be only about the Dutch Wikipedia.
Thanks, GerardM
On 4/25/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Delphine Ménard wrote:
I am available to continue this discussion privately, or with the chapters committee where relevant. I do not wish to engage further in this debate here, as I believe this is a matter of the Dutch to settle, it is they who should come up with a satisfying answer for all parties involved, not those of us who don't read Dutch, nor have all the facts.
Cheers,
Delphine
~notafish
I am not entirely sure. It is certainly the matter for the Dutch to settle... but at the same time... there are requests for the board to approve the relationship between the two organisations and the Foundation. So it may be best that we are informed before voting...
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2006/4/25, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
I am available to continue this discussion privately, or with the chapters committee where relevant. I do not wish to engage further in this debate here, as I believe this is a matter of the Dutch to settle, it is they who should come up with a satisfying answer for all parties involved, not those of us who don't read Dutch, nor have all the facts.
I don't see how the Dutch can settle this now. The Stichting and the Vereniging both exist. The Stichting is fully controlled by its board, the Vereniging is fully controlled by its members. The only thing that now happens is that people complain about the Stichting, and the board defends it. Some people want a Stichting, some don't. Those who want it, fully control it. Those who don't have no power over it whatsoever.
About the only thing that can still be done is the decision about how the Wikimedia Foundation behaves towards the Vereniging and the Stichting. I would propose to them to NOT recognize the Stichting as being in any way associated with the Wikimedia Foundation. The best place to discuss that kind of thing seems to me to be this list.
One reason for this would be the following statements on the discussion page of Wikimedia Nederland. RonaldB, the person who so much wanted the Stichting and is now in its board, agreed with the statement of an opponent that the purpose of the Stichting really is not to support Wikipedia, but to use the good name of the Wikimedia Foundation and the proof of concept of Wikipedia to support other projects that are NOT Wikimedia projects, but are in line with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation, see http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:De_kroeg#Reactie_Peter_Boelens
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
On 25-apr-2006, at 13:13, Delphine Ménard wrote:
A Vereniging is a member organisation, much on the model of all other Wikimedia Chapters. Its board is elected by the general assembly, made up of members who pay their fees to be part of the organisation.
Correct. Therefore a large group of users was in favor of a vereniging.
Note that members *have* to be part of the Wikimedia projects to be members of the organisation. Which, if anything, puts the power in the hands of *the community*.
No, *anybody* can be a member of the Dutch vereniging. You don't have to be a contributor to one of the projects.
A Stichting is a Foundation, much on the model of our Wikimedia Foundation. It has a board that is appointed. One of the members of this board is appointed by the Verijniging. The reason given for the founding of this Stichting is that in NL, sponsors, and particularly governement or other big non-profit organisation, are less enclined handing out large sums of money to member organisations, as their "stability" is not as important as that of Stichting.
Well, that is the POV of RonaldB, but of course it is nonsense. We have a very large and respected vereniging of car-owners here, called ANWB, plus a vereniging for municipalities (VNG), and on the other hand we have very obscure stichtingen as well.
As I understand it, the Vereniging will be the primary point of entry for any deals with sponsors that may come to Wikimedia Nederland,
I don't think so.
the Stichting will be used as a "buffer" for great-scale projects involving lots of money, potentially employing people etc..
No, the stichting will engage in *all* kinds of projects. Not necessarily tied to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Chapters, whatever their form, color or shape, are not responsible for the content of Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects. Never. Ever.
Well, RonaldB wanted to change that, and probably still wants to.
At best, they will increase the pool of editors through promotion for the projects.
Neither the Dutch vereniging nor the stichting is devoted to the projects solely. Primarily they are to promote the acquisition and release of free and/ or free accessible information in any manner, be it within or without the Florida based Foundation.
[...]
Pretending the contrary is mixing oil and water. It simply does not work.
You can pretty well mix oil and water. ;-) It is called an emulsion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulsion
As far as the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, the bylaws of both the Vereniging and the Stichting are very clear, and leave no room for interpretation as to whether either is ever going to take over the Wikimedia projects. They are not.
The bylaws of the vereniging explicitly states they won't. The bylaws of the stichting don't. They simply state the stichting will pursue its objectives by all legal means.
*Backing down* from the founding process and *then* criticizing,
As I have pointed out before, I was forced to back down because the next meeting would be for board-members only.
is, in my opinion, definitely not constructive. There is a wiki, it is open, there is an organisation, you can become a member.
You can become a member of a toothless and pennyless vereniging, while the stichting has the power and the money.
The best you can start with is making sure you have a voice in the Vereniging to change things from the inside.
You can't. The vereniging has no power whatsoever. It can't control the stichting. (It has only one representative there.) On the other hand the stichting could easily pay for some sockpuppets who would then control the vereniging.
+++ Muijz
Met vriendelijke groet, Erik van den Muijzenberg, medewerker Wikipedia + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Wikipedia is een online encyclopedie in het vrije domein. De Nederlandstalige versie bevat meer dan 150 duizend artikelen. U vindt deze op: http://nl.wikipedia.org/
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org