As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

Meta:strategy

From OmegaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for strategic discussions about OmegaWiki. Please contribute. For discussions on narrower points, please choose the appropriate discussion page.

Nuvola apps chat.png
Start a new discussion
Discussion pages
Strategic discussions
International Beer Parlour

- archives


List of Beer Parlours

International Linguists Beer Parlour

- Inflexions


Questions about words
Articles needing attention
Insect room (report bugs)

- archives


Functionality wanted

- archives


Taboo subjects[edit]

Hello.

A successful project usually gets more and more users, develops quicker and quicker, and for that needs more and more resources. Very well-known open projects like Wikipedia, Redhat, Ubuntu, Mozilla, OpenOffice.org etc. are led by an official organisation, either a company or an association or foundation, they have incomes, financial reports, and employees. There were a point in their development when they switched from one or very few people's initiative to an organisation, and an other point when they hired someone full time. When the project is successful, the historical leader often gets involved full time, and can live from that activity. When the project is not so successful or when no organisation is created, or for another reason, it's very frequent that the historical leader gets much less involved than he used to be and here is a danger because, in the absence of organisation, there is no authority to choose a successor, or to give the historical leader a role suiting his new availability and wish, for instance as a chairperson, while giving the executive management to someone else.

Omegawiki is more struggling along (in French, we say "vivoter") than developing the way a success story does, for lack of income and of organisation. They are many editing differences of point of view which are not even conflicts but would need a decision, and the decision is not made because everyone wants to be polite. The result is a lack of coherence. For instance, in Spanish, masculine and feminine forms of many words are included in Omegawiki, but not for other languages. No financial report is presented: we don't know the income, the needs, the expenses. Instead of developing, the solution adopted is sometimes a regression: for instance it seems there is no visitors statistics available any longer, and many bots were banned in September 2010, I don't know if the ban has been left or not. The only allowed bots were Google and MSN. And the only way of payment is the highly controversial PayPal, criticised both for founding induced abortion and for having closed Wikileaks' account. So the result of this policy of the open project OmegaWiki is... to favour only very big companies and proprietary standards. The technical development relies on very few volunteers, and so is slow. In 2009, Kipcool wrote that dealing with inflexions was a priority for many of us... Omegawiki, as a piece of software, is not optimised (specially, translations in many languages the reader doesn't need have to be downloaded and managed, for him to be able to see the very few languages he is interested in) and is very slow.

What I propose is to create an association to lead the project, to fix the priorities, to define more rules (and to ensure they be well presented and easily available), to give explicit responsibilities to some people (while trying to avoid many people throwing their weigh around as some do in Wikipedia), to find a source of income (I propose again one non aggressive advert each page), and to hire a programmer. --Fiable.biz 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, taboo subjects indeed... but good that you raise them.
I agree with you for most of the subjects, if not all (except for the advert).
In particular, I very much support the idea of a paid developer. I am even ready to give money for it. It seems I am the only "active" developer here, but I have not been very active these last months... I am sorry for that. I do have ideas, but I lack the time to implement them... Thanks for not throwing the stone at me.
The problem is: I don't know how to hire someone. I have no experience with that. I don't know how much a developer costs, where to look for one, etc. (I can only assess whether he's a good developer, and give the money and maybe act as a "mentor"). Also unfortunately, I could not be such paid developer since I already have a very well-paid full-time job.
We have an official association that was created for OmegaWiki "http://openprogress.org", but it is even more dead than OmegaWiki. I think Gerard is the only one having knowledge of what are our incomes. We can see if we can revive it, or create a new association. As an alternative to paypal, it is also possible to make a bank transfer to that association. You are absolutely right that it should be mentioned in OmegaWiki, and that Paypal is controversial. A financial report is also a good idea.
The costs are only the server costs, which is nicely paid by Erik Möller (who was the initial developer of OmegaWiki, and is now in the board of something of the Wikimedia Fundation).
P.S.: The ban on the bots was removed some months ago. Sorry for not mentioning it. --Kip 18:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Are you member of that association? Is it possible to propose to regular contributors to become members of it? (The rest of this post about hiring a programmer has been moved for better readability.) Fiable.biz 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I am not a member of that association, and I don't know how membership works. Have to ask Gerard...
For the rest: thanks for your input about possibilities to hire a programmer. So, where is money? --Kip 13:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Fiable.biz, for bringing up the subject. Thank you, Kip, for making an 8. Feb blog post about the discussion and inviting comments. For what it's worth, here's my experience about discovering OmegaWiki, trying to help, and drifting away. I arrived in mid-2007. I was interested in helping with Japanese-English technical vocabulary. I had difficulty understanding OmegaWiki's concepts like "Language", "DefinedMeaning", etc. See my User:JimDeLaHunt#Understanding OmegaWiki notes for details. In order to record Japanese terms correctly, I thought it was necessary to support Readings. GerardM was nice enough to have a discussion on my Talk page about this, but the conclusion I reached was that a) OmegaWiki didn't have a place yet to put Readings for Japanese, b) I wasn't even sure that Gerard accepted the requirement and had it on the list for future work, and c) I should go away and wait for OmegaWiki to be more developed. So I subscribed to the OmegaWiki blog and waited for announcements that the project had life and wanted content contributions. Activity on that blog stopped in July 2010, until KipCool's recent post there. So, what would help me to get back involved would be i) OmegaWiki features like Readings, necessary for the content I want to add, ii) better documenation for beginning contributors, and iii) regular news and invitations to participate on the blog. Hope this is helpful. JimDeLaHunt 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. The point Kipcool and I are trying to get people expressing their opinion about is: how could Omegawiki get enough resources and organisation to achieve its goals? For the organisation, our idea would be to use the existing association or to create another one. What do you think of this? For the financial resources, I proposed limited adverts, but Kipcool prefers a donation-only model, which would require something more to do, however, because the present model and the income, though non public, is not sufficient. What's your point of view? As far as the human resources are concerned, Kipcool and I propose to hire a programmer (or a variant of this). What do you think? --Fiable.biz 12:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Fiable, I think my first step would be to understand OmegaWiki's situation better. Creating a foundation helps in raising money, and raising money helps hire a programmer, but what problem would the programmer solve? With the existing code and server, what is OmegaWiki capable of doing? What blocks it from succeeding at that? (I'd argue that OmegaWiki isn't ready to handle Japanese language content, but it could handle some other languages.) You mentioned that the project has a difficulty resolving conflicts because noone wants to offend anyone else. That isn't a money problem. That problem comes from a lack of a shared purpose, and a lack of leadership. As far as gathering people to participate, I think there is a self-reinforcing cycle with projects like this. If the project looks stagnant, visitors don't stay to help. If the project has some activity, and a goal, then some visitors who like that goal will stay to help. My suggestion is to focus on goals, leadership, and making the project appear active first, and worry about programming and money later. JimDeLaHunt 00:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The association or fundation is not just about rising money, it's about goal, leadership and rules, the main ones of which to be written in the statutes. --Fiable.biz 04:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess this project needs a practical application that most users can take an advantage from using OmegaWiki. The users tend to prefer to use dictionaries on their mobile phones and google translate. Users are interested in qick, easy and accessible translation.
Accessibility
Therefore this project needs a client that can be used on mobile phones and tablets (Android, iOS and Windows Phone 7 - in that order).
Performance
Still not well enough. A client software might improve here. Clients should have a very direct access to the databases via web services. More processing should be done in the client and more client-side caching (language selection, type of speech selection, etc.) is helpful.
Simplicity
Only translations the user is interested in should be shown, while other languages should not be shown.
Efficiency
Google translate should be hooked in as a service using client-side JavaScript to provide translation suggestions to reduce the typing effort of the users. The orthography that comes back from google should get copied into omegawiki with one click from the user after checking the translation - if the translation is not correct, she has to type in the correct translation manually.
[Google might not like OmegaWiki storing the orthograpy from Google Translate. When I read the Google Translate Terms of Service a few months ago, they expressly forbade storing translation results for more than a few hours or days. — JimDeLaHunt 21:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There should be a lists of not-yet-translated words gathered from the Wikipedia databases. Given translations from wikipedia might be suggested.
MovGP0 20:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
MovGP0 suggests one possible goal for OmegaWiki: provide a quick, easy, and accessible translation for the general public via mobile devices. I can think of others: being a home for industry-specific special vocabulary, being a resource for professional translators, being a research corpus for linguistics researchers, etc. The challenge is to pick one or two to focus on for now. Then figure out which population would supply content to meet that goal. Third, figure out what programming (of content acceptance as well as delivery) is needed to meet that goal. — JimDeLaHunt 21:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Your approach seems reasonable to me. On the other hand, to my mind
  • we shouldn't restrict the usage of Omegawiki more than it is now. I mean that if someone uses Omegawiki for a certain purpose now, the change we make shouldn't prevent him to go on doing so in the future,
  • we should have a rather large goal, as dictionary publishers usually do. Most dictionaries are used by quite many different kind of people for many different goals. For instance "industry specific vocabulary" and "professional translators" are, for me, very similar and shouldn't be mutually exclusive, given that the main market of translation is technical translation. Having a large scope is very important in wikis, since the contributors are a subset of the readers. The larger the target, the larger the task force.
To make such a decision, we should know who, why and for what purpose people presently do use Omegawiki, and what they'd like to use it for. We can make a poll, but the features asked for both in this wiki and in the bugzilla can give us an idea. I had understood that dealing with inflexions was a wish shared by many, since it's an information needed to many purposes. Whether you're looking for a word on your smartphone, you're a professional translator, a linguistic researcher, an amateur or a translation machine, you sometimes need inflexions, or at least the inflexion group. Although I regard your approach as reasonable, possibly we should first deal with the features common to most dictionaries (like inflexion groups, easy access to word class, to examples, to the next and previous words…), before becoming more specialised, so trying to get money, to hire a programmer and to implement such features even before choosing a specific target might not be a so bad approach. Wiktionary has probably not been created with any narrow audience in mind. --Fiable.biz 07:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the lack of activity of openprogress (the website is now only spam), I have disabled the donate link on the left. People who insist on spending their money can give it to me :D --Kip 13:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If I can do anything to help, I shall do, but I cannot donate money or much time at the moment. I agree that some steering would be helpful and a 'killer application' might create an impetus we are looking for.
My own current interest of using OmegaWiki was (a) for supplying glossary data to translatewiki.net, (b) translating page names of all sorts within WikiMedia commons, and (c) feeding several existing printed dictionaries of 'exotic' and 'marginal' languages into OmegaWiki for my own research.
The latter would require adding a series of private language codes and additional annotation types and classes, allowing 'placehoder' definitions, and implementing minor features, which all can be had with a private copy. Whether or not such things are useful or accepted upstream could be determined independently, over time.
I am not convinced that purpose (a) cannot be met with OmegaWiki, but I trust Nike who says no. Details should be in his university thesis paper, available at least in Finnish.
(b) might be helpful to attract some contributors.
Of course there is a lack of vocabulary which makes data in OegaWiki hardly useful for many purposes, which in turn may hamper project deployment.
I agree that dealing with inflections properly may be a great step forward, but that is very language-specific and may increase the number of expressions to be stored by magnitudes (if we store inflected forms, which I think is inevitable) Turkish for instance has easily thousands of inflected forms per basic expression.
I agree that some ideas and concepts of OmegaWiki need much clearer and stricter documentation, such as the "exact match" flag in the syntrans lists. On-page help would be a nice thing to newcomers, btw. --Purodha Blissenbach 11:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hiring a programmer[edit]

The wages of a programmer depends on his/her skills, but also much on his employer, on the place he lives (the country he lives in, but also whether he lives in the countryside or in the capital city centre) and of his English knowledge. A programmer fluent in English can, even if living in a poor country, get orders by internet, and is likely not to accept the same salary as a programmer only fluent in his African dialect.
For a recruitment, there are induced costs, such as social insurance, possibly tax, office, computer, internet access, electricity, office cleaning, accounting etc.. If we recruit a programmer in a developed country, it will be expensive, but it may be a better way to interact with him. In this case, a possible solution would be that a member of the association board can have it with him. For instance the college, research team, association or company the said board member works in may accept to find a room for someone working for OmegaWiki. Maybe they would require that the association take part in the induced costs.
Another solution would be to recruit the person in a developing country, so cheaper. In some countries, like in Mongolia, it's legal to employ someone on another basis than time, provided than the employee gets at least the minimum wages and works continuously (I mean, with no gaps between two tasks). So the association can pay on a project basis. Or if a member of the association board lives in such a country, the solution mentioned above (working in the same building than a member of the association board) can apply. Unfortunately, it cannot be me, because the Mongolian authorities are more and more finicky about the adequacy between the visa and the real activity (I have a business visa, not an association one).
Yet another solution could be to deal with a freelancer rather than recruiting an employee. There are marketplaces for this, like http://www.guru.com/ or http://www.programmingbids.com/ . Advantages would be that there will not be much induced costs, and it's more flexible: when there is nothing to do, or no money any longer, the association would just not pass any more order. The association can change programmer easily. It's likely to be significantly more expensive than recruiting someone, because many people value very much stability, and are ready to work for less if they have a stable job, and also because we can only reach people fluent in English with such a system: we're playing on an international market. Another disadvantage is that the contract is finished when the job is done, and the programmer may not be available for another project later (specially if there has been a gap between 2 tasks), so that someone else will have to be introduced to the project, and this is a loss of time. Moreover, the programmer can understand he has become very useful and require higher and higher wages to go on working, specially in the case of an urgent task, when there is no alternative for the association.
Yet another solution would be to deal with a company rather than with a freelancer. It's likely to be even more expensive, but more secure: if the programmer(s) gets ill, leaves his job, get pregnant, dies etc. as employees are in the bad habit to do exactly at the worse moment, the company will provide for someone else. Although company bankruptcies are not rare, they are much fewer than breaches of labour contracts. Dealing with a company is also flexible, because if 2 programmers are needed, the company will probably find someone, specially if it's a big company. Of course, the bigger and more famous the company, the more secure, the more flexible, but also the more expensive it's likely to be. A third-word company like Fiable.biz is likely to answer to such a bid.
However the first step is not to hire someone, but to find money to do so. --Fiable.biz 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Next step[edit]

Taking into account the above mentioned facts that we need computing development, that the only one to work on this is Kipcool, that he doesn't like adverts, that Gerard definitely doesn't play the role of a leader any longer, that the association supposed to lead the project is dead and doesn't even answer, I suggest we create an association with a reasonably broad aim, we write a clear project, and beg money from public organisations, for instance the European Union, the Council of Europe, the UNESCO… to improve OmegaWiki in ways nearly everybody would agree: implementing inflexions, language selection (so that only the languages one is interested in appear) and a few other improvements.

--Fiable.biz 09:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree.
I also thought about creating an association (or not-for-profit organization), in order to ask for money (also with adverts (which I still don't like, but we could give it a try to see how much it brings), we would need an association with a bank account).
I could do that here in Germany, but 1) I don't know how ;-) even though I am interested to try and 2) apparently there needs to be at least 3 people to start such an organization.
With the idea that I am alone and cannot start an organization, I also read about "fiscal sponsorship" ( http://www.nonprofitlegalcenter.com/services/fiscal-sponsorship.html ) which seems like a nice alternative to creating an organization, even though there is the need to find an already existing organization that "adopts" us.
If we find 3 people, creating an NPO is fine with me. Whether we do it in Germany, in Mongolia or somewhere else is open (I have no opinion on that at the moment). What I want is that the accounting (money we receive and money we spend) is public. --Kip 20:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


I've read a bit more... In fact, 7 members are needed to start an organisation in Germany.
In France, it seems to be only 2 people needed, but I am not sure if I can start a "loi 1901" organisation if I live in Germany (apparently, an address in France is needed, but I am not sure on this point).
So... --Kip 09:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite sure one needs an address in France. --Fiable.biz 11:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In Netherlands you can have an organization on your own. In fact many people do. Patio4it 11:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you live there? Is it possible for a for-profit organisation to be member of a non-profit organisation in the Netherlands? --Fiable.biz 11:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As a social rule, the more people are involved at the creation of an association, the less problems arise later. --Fiable.biz 11:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I have no idea if that is possible. I'm not a lawyer, but if you don't mind I can copy and paste (part of) this discussion and send it to a specialised lawyer.
What about the WikiMediaFoundation? They are not involved nor interested om this project? BTW - Where is GerardM = ? Patio4it 08:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I heared that there had been a discussion about this subject matter which lead to the mutual agreement that, OmegaWiki was a task both too peripheral to WMFs mission and too big to be adequately supported by the WMF alone at that time, given the other existing WMF activities - at least that is what I have in mind, which means it may be biased, distorted, or incorrectly remembered. --Purodha Blissenbach 08:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
A comment from me in my role as WMF Trustee: OmegaWiki is clearly part of the core Wikimedia mission, and could be suppported by the WMF if that is desired by the community here. It sporadically comes up as an issue that we should consider - most recently at the Board meeting we just concluded in Berlin. Warmly, Sj 07:51, 1 April 2012 (CEST)
I copied your comment to Meta:International Beer Parlour so it is more visible to community members and they can comment on it.--InfoCan 01:42, 2 April 2012 (CEST)
Patio, I don't understand what you have no idea whether it would be possible or not… However, feel free to copy what you want. GerardM seems to have disappeared in the mysteries of the Wikimedia foundation and abandoned us as orphans with no explanation.  ;-) So we are in the situation of having an official leader not involved any longer, but who didn't delegate his power to anybody… Please see Help:OmegaWiki,_Wiktionary_and_the_WikiMedia_Foundation. --Fiable.biz 08:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I can see why discussions abuot this with the WMF can get distracted with the hard question of how to coordinate OmegaWiki with Wiktionary -- but the simple question of "should the WMF support OmegaWiki if it needs it" is easy to answer: yes, it should. :-) It is not peripheral to the WMF mission at all. 91.65.158.89 11:28, 1 April 2012 (CEST)


Regarding organization in the Neherlands, I found this interesting pdf. --Kip 15:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
GerardM is still working for us and has OmegaWiki in his blog. I'mfollowing him on Twitter

Twitter[edit]

I created an account @OmegaWiki on this microblog. If we get more followers we may get more editors as well. What you think? Info @ZeaForUs. That's'me. I try to post at least Expression of the day. ClubFavolosa(TFD) 12:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal of statutes of the Association LibreDictionary[edit]

Please correct the mistakes and make additions directly in the text, comment under each article, but if you propose an new redaction of an article, make your proposal below the previous proposal without deleting it. If you propose completely different statutes, write them below the present proposal. --Fiable.biz 11:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

[The text of the proposed statutes was moved to Meta:stragegy/Proposal of statutes of the Association LibreDictionary because of its large size. Discussions on it can be carried out there. --InfoCan 01:21, 2 April 2012 (CEST) ]

A first proposal is now completed. --Fiable.biz (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2013 (CET)

Does the Open progress foundation want to live?[edit]

This post answers one of Siebrand on that page: Meta:WMF_support#WMF_support.3F. We are very happy to hear from someone from the Open Progress Foundation, which is supposed to govern OmegaWiki, because we were speaking of founding another assocation: Strategy page. The question is whether the Open Progress Foundation wants to live or to die. It's not sane that a living project be officially lead by a dead body, including none of the active members of the project. Would you be so kind as to publish the statutes of the Open Progress Foundation as well as the names of the present board members? Thank you in advance. --Fiable.biz 07:44, 2 July 2012 (CEST)

Joining or not the Wikimedia foundation[edit]

I read on Open Progress' official website: "Stichting Open Progress (which was founded to support omegawiki.org and other open source projects) has been liquidated. OmegaWiki is currently privately hosted."! They didn't even write us this! It's high time we found an effective association. --Fiable.biz (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2013 (CET)

I didn't know... --Kip (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2013 (CET)
I read that today. --Fiable.biz (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2013 (CET)
Weird behavior. What about joining Wikimedia Foundation?  Klaas V 12:58, 13 February 2013 (CET)
It is not that easy to get adopted by the WMF, but you can help:[1].
I'm not fond of joining the Wikimedia Foundation, for 3 reasons: firstly, I don't like monopolies; secondly, Wikimedia is full of small people throwing their weight around; thirdly, the Wikimedia foundation seems to systematically prefer total independence to quality. Hence officially there is no advertisement, but in practise the foundation often displays its self-adverts (much less interesting to me than a real ad); company names as pseudo are forbidden (at least in some projects), but of course nobody can check if any contributor is a company employee or not; officially it is independent, but topics about rich countries are overwhelmingly represented compared with topics about poor countries. The Wikimedia foundation wants independent experts to work for free, not even allowing them to put they signature. They get such contributions, but they also get very many not so good contributions, and the number of active Wikipedians has been decreasing for more than 6 years. I think a more fruitful balance between contributors interest and Omegawiki's interest, between economics and independence is possible. Fiable.biz has been banned from the English Wikipedia because we are a company. So Fiable.biz is not completely opposed to joining the Wikimedia foundation, but this would be our last choice. --Fiable.biz (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2013 (CET)
If I can respond point by point: I can't argue with the first two reasons, but regarding the self-adverts, I'm pretty sure each project can decide by itself to opt in or out. The corporate-names prohibition is also a project by project decision; there's no need for OmegaWiki to adopt Wikipedia's policies. (The only more-or-less absolute rules are those listed here, and OmegaWiki already follows all of them.) About the wp:systemic bias, it's unfortunate (and much discussed), but OmegaWiki has the same problem: European languages (English, French, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, etc.) tend to have far more data that other languages (Arabic, Hindi, Bengali, Farsi, Indonesian, etc.) with similar spread. And are you suggesting that we pay experts to contribute here? – Ypnypn (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2013 (CET)
From the start we wanted OmegaWiki to be a Wikimedia Foundation project. We still do. As to systemic bias; obviously the big languages are doing better. Not because we want this but because the people who contribute know these languages better. With the links to Wikidata, the links to Commons, to Wikiquote and Wikisource we are basically saying: you need lexical support in order to find content in languages other than the standard language for a project. In essence, OmegaWiki allows for searching images from Commons.
It is easy and obvious that we CAN contribute to the Wikimedia projects. When our data and community joins the WMF, it will be a community that is really outspoken about the need for multilingual support. YES, WE CAN and YES, WE SHOULD. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2013 (CET)
@Ypnypn: I suggest that people who massively contribute to the project get profit from it. One way, as you say, would be to pay a few people. Another way would be to "pay" an organisation or even an individual which would have well contributed by allowing it to put ads on the site. Yet another way would be to allow it to sign its contributions. In some encyclopediae, articles are signed.--Fiable.biz (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2013 (CET)

The page about Omegawiki on wikimedia has been created on 2004-09-17, 8 years and a half ago, and the domain name Omegawiki.org has been registered on 2006-09-13, more than 6 years ago. Since, "From the start", Gerard Meijssen et al. "wanted OmegaWiki to be a Wikimedia Foundation project" and "still do", it proves that the Wikimedia foundation doesn't want this. And it is likely they want even less now that they have Wikidata to provide links between languages. It doesn't mean that it will never want, but it clearly means that we have to find an efficient way to make decisions and get support. The Open progress foundation could have been that framework, except that it never incorporated new active members of the project, and eventually died. This is why we really need another framework, rather that just waiting, year after year, an hypothetical acceptance from the Wikimedia foundation. If, one day, the Wikimedia foundation wants us, then our association will decide if it wants this or not, and under what conditions. This is the reason why I redacted a statutes proposal for this association. --Fiable.biz (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2013 (CET)