From mwstake
Jump to: navigation, search
If you are not able to edit the page, you can leave comments at mw:Talk:MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Bylaws.

The Bylaws page is modified using the following:

  1. Making the subsections wiki headers, this allows specific sections (4.3.6, etc.)
    • This makes the TOC more complicated, but is fixed by <div class="toclimit-2">__TOC__</div> and changes to Common.css
    • However, doing this also removes the visibility of section numbering, but is fixed by adding the NumberedHeadings extension and adding __NUMBEREDHEADINGS__
    • This makes the sections different font sizes, but is fixed by changes to Common.css
  2. Removing section edit links by using __NOEDITSECTION__
  3. Edits on February 14, 2019, by Frank Taylor
    • Inserted commas after "be advised of" in provisions 3.6.1 and 3.6.2.
    • Reversed order of terms "Special Meeting of Members" and "Annual Meeting of Members" in provision
    • Inserted explanations in note 4, note 8, and note 14.
  4. Edits on February 24, 2019, by Frank Taylor
    • Changed “shall” to “will” in,, and 5.1.1.
    • Changed number of directors from eight to nine in 5.1.1.
    • Added note to
  5. The fee schedule is based on the Linux Foundation (another 501c6) Bylaws

Toward Consensus[edit]

We need consensus from board members on the Bylaws. This section is for noting that.


My vote: Green tickY --User:MarkAHershberger(talk) 14:11, 23 April 2019 (EDT)


I’m good with the bylaws, except that I think we should have measurable actions we plan to take for section 2.3. Those measurements and action specifics don’t need to be in the bylaws, and probably shouldn’t be, but perhaps should be linked from it. Examples: 2.3.1-commit X patches to MW core, Y of which close out preexisting Phabricator tasks.

2.3.2 is what we were talking about with Ext:Duplicator. We need to formalize what we plan to do with it

Right, putting the specific things we're working on in the Bylaws wouldn't be appropriate. How about updating the bylaws to point to a specific way to track our current activities? --User:MarkAHershberger(talk) 14:13, 23 April 2019 (EDT)


My vote: Green tickY --Bryandamon (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2019 (EDT)


My vote: Green tickY --Cindy Cicalese (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2019 (EDT)


My vote: Green tickY --Sabine.melnicki (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2019 (EDT)


My vote: Green tickY --Markus Glaser (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2019 (EDT)


My vote: Green tickY --Evita Hollis (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2019 (EDT)


My vote: Green tickY --Lex (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2019 (CEST)

Elaboration of how relationship with WMF works[edit]

I'm curious how 2.3.4 Cooperate and liaison with the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. will work. Does the WMF have an established policy or working group on their side for this cooperation? I would recommend a periodic meeting to get things started.

Also, please chime in on T220212, a request to discuss the relationship between the foundation and 3rd party users at Tech Con 2019. I think we need to press this matter.

--Darenwelsh (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

What restructuring are you referring to in your Phabricator comment? ("Ideally we all come to some kind of agreement now instead of later in order to make better decisions early on in the restructuring.") --Bryandamon (talk)
I'm referring to the strategic goals and how lots of changes are likely coming out of those high level goals being interpreted down into specific code changes. --Darenwelsh (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2019 (EDT)