Rules of Procedure

Hi,

I have attached not the whole Geschäftsordnung, but rather its detailed
plan. Let me know if that's what you would expect in terms of issues
raised, discussed, etc. So that I get the full scope right.

sorry for being so late on this as well. Replying in public, since I think the topic is interesting to everyone.

Our statutes (http://documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf) foresee in § 7 V, that we have so-called Rules of Procedure: "The board of directors will adopt rules of procedure, which have to be published. Within those, the appointment and consultation of executive directors and further executive officers can be regulated."

The advantage of these Rules of Procedure are that the board can change them without a member vote, at least in most cases, mainly because it affects the internal working scheme of the board.

I have the version the German association uses here. It will not fit 1:1, but it might serve as a starter. I'm sending it to you via private mail, Charles, as well as all other German BoD members. Maybe someone can help with translating, since it's in German only. Otherwise, Google translate might be a starter for a (very) rough overview. :wink:

Florian

May i ask that the official languages for anything but the official
statute be English(*).

iow. the binding version of the rule of procedure, bylaws etc..
(everything but the official berlin state approved statues) be the
English one.

There is nothing more frustrating than 'oh, but the German version
does not quite say that, it really does not translate quite well, what
it _really_ means is...'

Norbert

(*) common English, not legalese English. that is the meaning of the
words must be the commonly understood meaning, not a special
legal-context meaning, even if that require more words to express.
These documents are our own, they should not require a law degree to
interpret, nor should it be acceptable to have argument like 'you're
not a lawyer... trust me this _really_ mean:...)

=
Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement - Et les mots pour le dire
arrivent aisément.
[whatever is well conceived is clearly said... and the words to say it
flow with ease. ]
L'Art poétique (1674)
Citations de Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux

Hi,

May i ask that the official languages for anything but the official
statute be English(*).

iow. the binding version of the rule of procedure, bylaws etc..
(everything but the official berlin state approved statues) be the
English one.

There is nothing more frustrating than 'oh, but the German version
does not quite say that, it really does not translate quite well, what
it_really_ means is...'

unfortunately, the documents referenced by the statutes of our German entity need to be German in their main, legally binding version. Of course we can provide a translation in English, but the binding one is the German one.

Anything that is not directly referenced by the statutes can be done in English, IMHO.

Florian

Why ? these are extra-internal documents not subject to Berlin state
review right?
So they can be in Sanskrit if we choose to.

You cannot ask our membership to vote to approve a text they cannot
read. the community bylaw that will be vote upon _have_ to be the
english one. that is the only version that is voted-upon and agreed to
by the membership, hence it _is_ the binding version.

Norbert

Hi,

Why ? these are extra-internal documents not subject to Berlin state
review right?
So they can be in Sanskrit if we choose to.

they are not under the Berlin state review, that's right. However, they are legal (!) part of a German foundation, since they are included via their statutes. Therefore, they must be in German.

You cannot ask our membership to vote to approve a text they cannot
read. the community bylaw that will be vote upon _have_ to be the
english one. that is the only version that is voted-upon and agreed to
by the membership, hence it _is_ the binding version.

I told you how the legal system works. You can either believe it or not. However, it makes sense you trust the local guy, which is me. :wink:

Nobody said running an international entity is an easy task, but I think we're doing good. As long as we have proper translations, everything is allright.

Florian

I told you how the legal system works. You can either believe it or not.
However, it makes sense you trust the local guy, which is me. :wink:

I'm not a trusting guy, and that kind of answer is exactly what I want to avoid.
The 'because I said so' argument did not work for me in Sunday's
school when I was a kid, it is still not working for me now.
but please point me to the law that said that a Stifung cannot enter
into any binding contract, have any internal procedures, that are not
written in german...

(note: this has nothing to do with 'Florian'. these are precedent
setting decisions... and who knows who will be the one in the future
that will hold the 'because I said so' pulpit )

Nobody said running an international entity is an easy task, but I think
we're doing good. As long as we have proper translations, everything is
allright.

No it is not, we already had some 'oops what the German version
_really_ means is....' moments.

So how do you expect me and other members to vote on something when I
do not know what I am voting on ?

My understanding is that the German legal system is there to enforce
the statute: that is the part that explain how we select the board,
how we kick a board member out, how we alter the statute.

Our bylaws are an internal non-german-legal document that we use as
_our_ constitution. it is not meant to be used in court. it is meant
so that members can have an informed opinion about what can be done,
how it is done, and decide if the executive branch (BoD) is within the
bound of the spirit of these bylaws or is going astray... at which
point the membership has the ability to ultimately kick the BoD out
and _that_ process is legally described in German, so that it can get
enforced by the German court.
No German court (or any other court for that matter) should be
involved in 'deciding' what our bylaws means. that is a reserved right
of the membership as a whole.
If the membership disagree with the interpretation of our bylaws by
the BoD it has the ability to preempt that decision and/or to 'recall'
a BoD member and/or to amend the Bylaws.
no external entity involved.

Norbert

Hi Norbert,

but please point me to the law that said that a Stifung cannot enter
into any binding contract, have any internal procedures, that are not
written in german...

Those Rules of Procedure and the Community Bylaws are both included/referenced via the legally binding statutes of a German entity. While these two documents itself are not subject to approval by the authorities as the statutes have been, of course the authorities need to have a chance to read them, otherwise we could write totally contradictory things inside. Like, in the German statutes we write that objective criteria must be met, and in the Aramaic addendum we write "We only add members if we they pay at least 1.000 € in donations".

Therefore a quick shot, although that might be the wrong quote:
§ 23 VwVfG, Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz: "Die Amtssprache ist deutsch." = "The official langage is German."

It will always be a challenge to have several languages inside one entity, and I am sure we will face more challenges like these in the future. A similar problem will occur when signing bank contracts or insurance papers, since you rarely get English binding versions. And should I move to e.g. Paris, and would like to have a phone contract, I doubt they will give me a German officially, binding version of their terms & conditions.

I think those discussions are pointless, as they lead to nowhere.

I would prefer, honestly, if we all rather worked on the tasks we have to do, as outlined on http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Tasks. There's a lot of work that actually needs to be done...

Florian

Hi Norbert,

but please point me to the law that said that a Stifung cannot enter
into any binding contract, have any internal procedures, that are not
written in german...

Those Rules of Procedure and the Community Bylaws are both included/referenced via the legally binding statutes of a German entity. While these two documents itself are not subject to approval by the authorities as the statutes have been, of course the authorities need to have a chance to read them, otherwise we could write totally contradictory things inside. Like, in the German statutes we write that objective criteria must be met, and in the Aramaic addendum we write "We only add members if we they pay at least 1.000 € in donations".

Therefore a quick shot, although that might be the wrong quote:
§ 23 VwVfG, Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz: "Die Amtssprache ist deutsch." = "The official langage is German."

It will always be a challenge to have several languages inside one entity, and I am sure we will face more challenges like these in the future. A similar problem will occur when signing bank contracts or insurance papers, since you rarely get English binding versions. And should I move to e.g. Paris, and would like to have a phone contract, I doubt they will give me a German officially, binding version of their terms & conditions.

I think those discussions are pointless, as they lead to nowhere.

I would prefer, honestly, if we all rather worked on the tasks we have to do, as outlined on http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Tasks. There's a lot of work that actually needs to be done...

Florian

Hi,

Our bylaws are an internal non-german-legal document that we use as
_our_ constitution. it is not meant to be used in court.

wrong.

I recall one rule where the board is not allowed to change the bylaws in case of a dispute, until that dispute is settled. (Don't nail me down on the exact wording here...) If the worst case happens, someone could claim that in court.

So, while not per se and automatically, in certain situations, those internal rules as referenced by our public statutes are of course subject to some amount of legal control. We could also have opted not have them in the statutes, but we didn't.

Florian

Yes but what would be disputed in court if anything would be the fact
that the BoD did not honor the block, which should be a statute side
thing, and not the object of the block (i.e the actual change of the
bylaw. iow the things being blocked could be a logo (no language), and
the rational still apply. the court does not need to understand the
content of the change to rule on whether the change was procedurally
correct.

In my mind the court should be involved only to rule on the form of
the decision process, not on the content of the bylaws.

furthermore, isn't there already a wordage to indicate that the bylaws
cannot overrule the statue. iow we could have a bylaws that says: in
order to be a member you need to pay a $1000 fee.
Such rule would be valid as long as it does not contradict the statues...

My argument is not that the bylaws have precedence over the statute,
but that the English version of the bylaws is the reference version:
if there is a doubt in what the bylaws means, the English version
govern, since that is the one that _has_ been approved by the
membership and not the version translated in German or any other
languages.

Norbert

Section 1 Scope

(1) This Act shall apply to the administrative activities under public
law of the official bodies:

1. of the Federal Government and public law entities, institutions and
foundations operated directly by the Federal Government,

2. of the Länder and local authorities and other public law entities
subject to the supervision of the Länder where these execute federal
legislation on behalf of the federal authorities,

where no federal law or regulation contains similar or conflicting provisions.

(2) This Act shall also apply to the administrative activities under
public law of the authorities referred to in paragraph 1, no. 2 when
the Länder of their own authority execute federal legislation within
the exclusive or concurrent powers of the Federal Government, where no
federal law or regulation contains similar or conflicting provisions.
This shall apply to the execution of federal legislation enacted after
this Act comes into force only to the extent that the federal
legislation, with the agreement of the Bundesrat, declares this Act to
be applicable.

(3) This Act shall not apply to the execution of federal law by the
Länder where the administrative activity of the authorities under
public law is regulated by a law on administrative procedure of the
Länder.

(4) For the purposes of this Act "authorities" shall comprise any body
which performs tasks of public administration.

But even if it was applicable

Section 23 Official language

(1) The official language shall be German.

(2) If applications are made to an authority in a foreign language, or
petitions, evidence, documents and the like are filed in a foreign
language, the authority shall immediately require that a translation
be provided. Where necessary the authority may require that the
translation provided be made by a certified or publicly authorised and
sworn translator or interpreter. If the required translation is not
furnished without delay, the authority may, at the expense of the
participant, itself arrange for a translation. Where the authority
employs interpreters or translators, they shall receive remuneration
in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Judicial
Remuneration and Compensation Act (Justizvergütungs- und
–entschädingungsgesetz, JVEG).

(3) If a notice, application or statement of intent fixes a period
within which the authority is to act in a certain manner and such
notifications are received in a foreign language, the period shall
commence only at the moment that a translation is available to the
authority.

(4) If a notice, application or statement of intent received in a
foreign language fixes a period for a participant vis-à-vis the
authority, enforces a claim under public law or requires the
fulfilment of an action, the said notice, application or statement of
intent shall be considered as being received by the authority on the
actual date of receipt where at the authority's request a translation
is provided within the period fixed by the authority. Otherwise the
moment of receipt of the translation shall be deemed definitive,
unless international agreements provide otherwise. This fact should be
made known when a period is fixed.

only means that if we wanted to enter the bylaws as evidence, we would
need to provide the german authority a translated version, not that
that translated version has to be our official 'master' version.

Norbert

Hi Norbert,

I make it short, and please don't take these comments personally - they are not meant insulting. :slight_smile:

It is really tedious to discuss ifs and whens, and jump into various legal texts. Law is something where you can argument and discuss for hours, any lawyer knows that. :slight_smile: However, I *really* would like to avoid that we open up another construction site by doing so. I guess not everyone has got this news yet, but: We are now offically a Foundation, and we have a *LOT* of administrative stuff to do. These are things that have undoubtedly to be done, and I have put them into the wiki tasks page.

You may find good arguments for having those texts in English as their binding version, no doubts about that. However, I see things different. To me, it's not even a matter of law, but a matter of common sense (sorry if that sounds harsh, not meant this way). If you are located in a specific country, and your organization falls into the legislation of this country, then the legal language of your statutes is the country's main language.

If you reference other legal texts in those statutes, it is fairly normal that those documents are in the very same language. I don't even see a point to discuss here, but maybe my view is too narrowed. It would have been no problem if these legal texts were not referenced in the statutes, but they were. So they are subject to the same language.

If someone comes up with a legally approved check that those documents can be in English without any disadvantages, why not. Right now, I have only seen speculations and rumors, and they are not helpful. They cost a lot of time, time that - again - I prefer if all the BoD would use for working on the important tasks I put into the wiki.

You arguments might be good, but you are not the German authorities we have to work with. And in doubt, their rules matter, since they oversee our foundation. I don't know it 100%, although I have a strong gut feeling, and neither you do know it 100%. In doubt, let's stick to that what is more safe, unless someone shows me proof it's possible the other way round.

After all, don't forget that what we do here is unique - to us, to the world of free software, and to the authorities. We shouldn't create more problems than needed in the beginning.

Florian

Guys, let's call time on this topic, the arguments look repeated.
Maybe bring it up on next week's BoD call, and then possibly with
input from others affected.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten