Mailing List Archive

Michael Snow wrote:
> I've been assembling my notes from last week's board meeting to pass
> along. The first set of items I have to report is business from the
> chapters committee. All of these resolutions have been posted on the
> foundation website.
>
> We approved two new chapters, and there's something special about each
> of the two. Wikimedia New York City is special because it's the first
> one recognized under the new sub-national chapter guidelines. And
> Wikimedia UK is special because it's the second version of that chapter.
> For the sake of formality - and nobody does formality better than the
> British, which has been part of the difficulty - we revoked the
> recognition of the first one, which is dissolved or in the process of
> dissolving. Anyway, welcome to both of the new chapters!
>
> Also, two resolutions relating to the chapters committee's membership
> and procedures were approved. One recognizes the current members and the
> other allows the committee to determine its own membership in the
> future. This allows them to keep their work going without waiting for
> the board to pass a resolution (the board reserves the ability to
> appoint and remove members and will still be informed of changes).
>
> --Michael Snow


Hello,

For the sake of clarity, I'd like to ask that a mean is given to
recognize that a sub-chapter is a sub-chapter rather than a chapter.
If not in the name that we use within ourselves, at least on meta and
internal pages. For now, I guess everyone from the house can guess that
it is a subchapter, but when we have 50 chapters and 50 sub-chapters, it
may not be so easy to deal with.

For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not
subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And
the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been
mandatory that names used be of the type Wikimedia + Country + blabla).

Beyond this, could it be possible that the difference between a chapter
and a sub chapter be published ?

I know some guidelines circulated internally, but I do believe it should
not only be internal. I went to the resolution authorizing its
recognition as a sub-chapter
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City)
and I found reference to "Wikimedia Foundation: A Framework for
Encouraging the Development of Sub-National Chapters", but no idea where
to find this document. I thought I could click on the only link provided
on the resolution (local chapters), but this one leads to
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters, which does not
mention sub chapters, nor Wikimedia NYC, nor any framework for
blablasubchapters.

So, in effect, the resolution does not tell me anything beyond the fact
that there seems to be sub-chapters and chapters. If there is a
difference, what is it ?

Both for external world and for us folks, it is important to understand
the relationships existing organisations. Right now, the information is
not provided. Could someone from the Foundation fix that and add the
necessary information, eg
* the text of the framework on wmf site
* the link from the resolution to the framework page
* an update of the chapter list on wmf site, to add the subchapters
category OR the creation of a second list
* on meta, subchapters must be categorized as subchapters, not chapters

Ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Florence Devouard wrote:
> For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not
> subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And
> the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been
> mandatory that names used be of the type Wikimedia + Country + blabla).
>
It is a chapter. The division indicated by the "sub" in sub-national
chapters is in the nation, not necessarily in the chapter. There is no
chapter for Wikimedia NYC to be a subchapter of. People are welcome to
use Wikimedia US-NYC (or NYC-US, it doesn't matter to me) where the
designation of sub-national chapter is important, though.
> I know some guidelines circulated internally, but I do believe it should
> not only be internal. I went to the resolution authorizing its
> recognition as a sub-chapter
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City)
> and I found reference to "Wikimedia Foundation: A Framework for
> Encouraging the Development of Sub-National Chapters", but no idea where
> to find this document.
I believe I shared the FAQ on this list earlier, but I've taken a copy
and put it on Meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters

--Michael Snow


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For the sake of clarity, I'd like to ask that a mean is given to
> recognize that a sub-chapter is a sub-chapter rather than a chapter.
> If not in the name that we use within ourselves, at least on meta and
> internal pages. For now, I guess everyone from the house can guess that
> it is a subchapter, but when we have 50 chapters and 50 sub-chapters, it
> may not be so easy to deal with.

I think there's some confusion between recognition of a sub-national
chapter, or a chapter whose purview does not cover the entire
nation-state in which they operate, and a "sub-chapter," which is a
misleading distinction that does not (at the moment) exist.

Although there are some common-sense rules when it comes to dealing
with chapters organized for a metropolitan area or a politically
disputed territory, a chapter is a chapter. Every chapter has unique
considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be
it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're
concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter.

As chapters grow and evolve, so will WMF policy, but for the time
being this is where it stands.

Austin Hair
Chairman pro tempore
Wikimedia Chapters Committee

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Austin Hair wrote:
> Every chapter has unique
> considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be
> it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're
> concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter.

Speaking only for myself as one board member among many, I agree with
Austin completely. There can be "subnational chapters" - meaning that
the chapter is concentrated on a region smaller than a nation-state, but
they are not 'sub-chapters'.

The New York City metropolitan area:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area

has 18.8 million people.

This is slightly larger than the Netherlands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands

at 16.4 million.

The world is not necessarily carved up geopolitically in a manner that
would make it at all make sense to declare one nation/one chapter.

It's a subtle matter with many factors that have to be thoughtfully
balanced.

--Jimbo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> wrote:
> Austin Hair wrote:
>> Every chapter has unique
>> considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be
>> it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're
>> concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter.
>
> Speaking only for myself as one board member among many, I agree with
> Austin completely. There can be "subnational chapters" - meaning that
> the chapter is concentrated on a region smaller than a nation-state, but
> they are not 'sub-chapters'.
>
> The New York City metropolitan area:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area
>
> has 18.8 million people.
>
> This is slightly larger than the Netherlands:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
>
> at 16.4 million.
>
> The world is not necessarily carved up geopolitically in a manner that
> would make it at all make sense to declare one nation/one chapter.
>
> It's a subtle matter with many factors that have to be thoughtfully
> balanced.

Population isn't the only factor, of course, or even the most important one.

Wikimedia France operates in a very different way from its next-door
neighbor, Wikimedia Germany.

Wikimedia Serbia is very different from Wikimedia Italy, and in fact
only recently became Wikimedia Serbia after incorporating as Wikimedia
Serbia and Croatia.

Both Taiwan and Hong Kong enjoy special relationships with the
People's Republic of China, and our chapters there have specific
concerns not entirely unlike those of our new American chapter.

Every chapter is different, but until we make chapters representative
bodies and hold elections where certain chapters receive one vote and
others receive 0.375 of a vote, we shouldn't be singling anyone out
for that distinction.

Austin

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA legal
system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is
necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things like
charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no real
need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society.

When a "chapter" like New York is allowed then there is in essence nothing
to have another "sub chapter "in another country.. In the end when it is all
about community and community activity, an Amsterdam chapter is as valid as
a Dutch chapter right ?
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/20 Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com>

> Austin Hair wrote:
> > Every chapter has unique
> > considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be
> > it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're
> > concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter.
>
> Speaking only for myself as one board member among many, I agree with
> Austin completely. There can be "subnational chapters" - meaning that
> the chapter is concentrated on a region smaller than a nation-state, but
> they are not 'sub-chapters'.
>
> The New York City metropolitan area:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area
>
> has 18.8 million people.
>
> This is slightly larger than the Netherlands:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
>
> at 16.4 million.
>
> The world is not necessarily carved up geopolitically in a manner that
> would make it at all make sense to declare one nation/one chapter.
>
> It's a subtle matter with many factors that have to be thoughtfully
> balanced.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> Hoi,
> When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA legal
> system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is
> necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things like
> charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no real
> need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society.
>
> When a "chapter" like New York is allowed then there is in essence nothing
> to have another "sub chapter "in another country.. In the end when it is all
> about community and community activity, an Amsterdam chapter is as valid as
> a Dutch chapter right ?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined
geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter
beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. On the other hand. A volunteers
organization must not be a WMF recognized chapter. The WMF is appreciate
of every voluntiers initiative and would like to help if we can and if
it is meaningful.

Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an
USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get
all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not
that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay.
Thanks,
GerardM


2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>

> Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> > Hoi,
> > When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA
> legal
> > system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is
> > necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things like
> > charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no real
> > need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society.
> >
> > When a "chapter" like New York is allowed then there is in essence
> nothing
> > to have another "sub chapter "in another country.. In the end when it is
> all
> > about community and community activity, an Amsterdam chapter is as valid
> as
> > a Dutch chapter right ?
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined
> geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter
> beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. On the other hand. A volunteers
> organization must not be a WMF recognized chapter. The WMF is appreciate
> of every voluntiers initiative and would like to help if we can and if
> it is meaningful.
>
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Not at all. There's no reason that the national and subnational chapters
have to perform the same functions. It's entirely possible that the national
chapter can serve as an organizational and facilitating umbrella for
subnational chapters.

As to your arguments that having a NY chapter obviates the need for other
subnational US chapters, I disagree. There are plenty of reasons why a
person outside of NY would want to become a member of a US subnational
chapter other than NY; location not the least of them.

-Dan

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hoi,
> So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an
> USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will
> get
> all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not
> that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> 2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>
>
> > Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> > > Hoi,
> > > When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA
> > legal
> > > system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is
> > > necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things like
> > > charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no
> real
> > > need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society.
> > >
> > > When a "chapter" like New York is allowed then there is in essence
> > nothing
> > > to have another "sub chapter "in another country.. In the end when it
> is
> > all
> > > about community and community activity, an Amsterdam chapter is as
> valid
> > as
> > > a Dutch chapter right ?
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined
> > geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter
> > beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. On the other hand. A volunteers
> > organization must not be a WMF recognized chapter. The WMF is appreciate
> > of every voluntiers initiative and would like to help if we can and if
> > it is meaningful.
> >
> > Ting
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Dan Rosenthal
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
What I said was that the NY chapter prevents an USA chapter. It would be
obvious to have one such. With one in place, you can organise to your hearts
content wherever you like.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/20 Dan Rosenthal <swatjester@gmail.com>

> Not at all. There's no reason that the national and subnational chapters
> have to perform the same functions. It's entirely possible that the
> national
> chapter can serve as an organizational and facilitating umbrella for
> subnational chapters.
>
> As to your arguments that having a NY chapter obviates the need for other
> subnational US chapters, I disagree. There are plenty of reasons why a
> person outside of NY would want to become a member of a US subnational
> chapter other than NY; location not the least of them.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have
> an
> > USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will
> > get
> > all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is
> not
> > that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> > 2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>
> >
> > > Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA
> > > legal
> > > > system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is
> > > > necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things
> like
> > > > charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no
> > real
> > > > need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society.
> > > >
> > > > When a "chapter" like New York is allowed then there is in essence
> > > nothing
> > > > to have another "sub chapter "in another country.. In the end when it
> > is
> > > all
> > > > about community and community activity, an Amsterdam chapter is as
> > valid
> > > as
> > > > a Dutch chapter right ?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined
> > > geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter
> > > beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. On the other hand. A volunteers
> > > organization must not be a WMF recognized chapter. The WMF is
> appreciate
> > > of every voluntiers initiative and would like to help if we can and if
> > > it is meaningful.
> > >
> > > Ting
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Rosenthal
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> Hoi,
> So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an
> USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get
> all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not
> that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
Yes, having a New York chapter pretty ruled out the possibility of
establishing a USA chapter. But then, the USA chapter was discussed for
quite long time and it is quite unprobably that it would become true in
the near future. There are also suggestions that the WM-NYC could serve
as a seed and gradually expand its covering area at sometime to become a
WM-USA. But that's all speculations. We will see how everything develops.

Again, from the view of fundation WM-NYC is not a "sub chapter" but a
wholevalue chapter. Its area doesn't covers a nation, but that doesn't
make it less or more than the chapters whose area cover a country. And
sub-national or cross-national chapters also may be established
somewhere else than USA, right.

As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the
Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what
is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical?

Greetings
Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Michael Snow wrote:
> Florence Devouard wrote:
>> For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not
>> subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And
>> the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been
>> mandatory that names used be of the type Wikimedia + Country + blabla).
>>
> It is a chapter.

...

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City

So... the resolution stating that "The Board of Trustees officially
recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a Sub-National Chapter " should actually be
read as "The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a
Chapter "

?

Jeeee....


The division indicated by the "sub" in sub-national
> chapters is in the nation, not necessarily in the chapter. There is no
> chapter for Wikimedia NYC to be a subchapter of. People are welcome to
> use Wikimedia US-NYC (or NYC-US, it doesn't matter to me) where the
> designation of sub-national chapter is important, though.
>> I know some guidelines circulated internally, but I do believe it should
>> not only be internal. I went to the resolution authorizing its
>> recognition as a sub-chapter
>> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City)
>> and I found reference to "Wikimedia Foundation: A Framework for
>> Encouraging the Development of Sub-National Chapters", but no idea where
>> to find this document.
> I believe I shared the FAQ on this list earlier, but I've taken a copy
> and put it on Meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters


okay, I added the link to the wmf:local chapter page, so that everyone
navigating from the resolution page to the local chapter page, can find
the meta page.

Ant

> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester@gmail.com> wrote:

> As to your arguments that having a NY chapter obviates the need for other
> subnational US chapters, I disagree. There are plenty of reasons why a
> person outside of NY would want to become a member of a US subnational
> chapter other than NY; location not the least of them.

He's not saying that it makes other subnational US chapters
unnecessary, but that it makes a national US chapter (or, for that
sake, a New York State chapter or a northeastern US chapter)
impossible.

--
André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an
> USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get
> all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not
> that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay.

What do you mean by "all the trimmings" in this context?


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de> wrote:

> As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the
> Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what
> is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical?

Well, there are two organizations, but one of them is a chapter,
having mostly wikimedians as its members, organizing a meeting every
now and again, the other is not a chapter, is completely inactive, has
no possibility of having members and is opposed by a large part,
possibly the majority of the community.

--
André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Is it like in "Animal farm" that all countries are equal but some are more
equal then others? By calling NY a sub chapter, it is inherent that there is
room for a USA chapter. Each chapter has one vote as I understand it or will
each subchapter have one as well ??

Originally the notion of a chapter was very much that it was along the lines
of legislatures. This no longer seems to be relevant or am I missing
something?
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>

> Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> > Hoi,
> > So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have
> an
> > USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will
> get
> > all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is
> not
> > that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> Yes, having a New York chapter pretty ruled out the possibility of
> establishing a USA chapter. But then, the USA chapter was discussed for
> quite long time and it is quite unprobably that it would become true in
> the near future. There are also suggestions that the WM-NYC could serve
> as a seed and gradually expand its covering area at sometime to become a
> WM-USA. But that's all speculations. We will see how everything develops.
>
> Again, from the view of fundation WM-NYC is not a "sub chapter" but a
> wholevalue chapter. Its area doesn't covers a nation, but that doesn't
> make it less or more than the chapters whose area cover a country. And
> sub-national or cross-national chapters also may be established
> somewhere else than USA, right.
>
> As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the
> Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what
> is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical?
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Is it like in "Animal farm" that all countries are equal but some are more
equal then others? By calling NY a sub chapter, it is inherent that there is
room for a USA chapter. Each chapter has one vote as I understand it or will
each subchapter have one as well ??

Originally the notion of a chapter was very much that it was along the lines
of legislatures. This no longer seems to be relevant or am I missing
something?
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>

> Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> > Hoi,
> > So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have
> an
> > USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will
> get
> > all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is
> not
> > that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> Yes, having a New York chapter pretty ruled out the possibility of
> establishing a USA chapter. But then, the USA chapter was discussed for
> quite long time and it is quite unprobably that it would become true in
> the near future. There are also suggestions that the WM-NYC could serve
> as a seed and gradually expand its covering area at sometime to become a
> WM-USA. But that's all speculations. We will see how everything develops.
>
> Again, from the view of fundation WM-NYC is not a "sub chapter" but a
> wholevalue chapter. Its area doesn't covers a nation, but that doesn't
> make it less or more than the chapters whose area cover a country. And
> sub-national or cross-national chapters also may be established
> somewhere else than USA, right.
>
> As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the
> Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what
> is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical?
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I was wondering myself.
I thought this information would be in the FAQ, but it is not.

Two questions.

First, the annual meeting.
We hold an annual meeting between all chapters and WMF.
Already, because of the number of chapters, it is recommanded that only
one representant of all chapters come to the meeting. Needless to say,
this limitation is going to largely damage the ability of this meeting
to build anything.
Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ?
If that's the case, I suspect that we will soon have to abandon this
annual meeting altogether, and will have to replace it by "region" meetings.

Second, elections to board of trustees of WMF.
WMF has given the opportunity to chapters to elect two members to the
board. However, it is not clear to me if subchapters will be included or
not. Has this been decided ? Or will chapters be offered the opportunity
to decide that by themselves ?

Ant

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Is it like in "Animal farm" that all countries are equal but some are more
> equal then others? By calling NY a sub chapter, it is inherent that there is
> room for a USA chapter. Each chapter has one vote as I understand it or will
> each subchapter have one as well ??
>
> Originally the notion of a chapter was very much that it was along the lines
> of legislatures. This no longer seems to be relevant or am I missing
> something?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>
>
>> Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
>>> Hoi,
>>> So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have
>> an
>>> USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will
>> get
>>> all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is
>> not
>>> that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay.
>>> Thanks,
>>> GerardM
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, having a New York chapter pretty ruled out the possibility of
>> establishing a USA chapter. But then, the USA chapter was discussed for
>> quite long time and it is quite unprobably that it would become true in
>> the near future. There are also suggestions that the WM-NYC could serve
>> as a seed and gradually expand its covering area at sometime to become a
>> WM-USA. But that's all speculations. We will see how everything develops.
>>
>> Again, from the view of fundation WM-NYC is not a "sub chapter" but a
>> wholevalue chapter. Its area doesn't covers a nation, but that doesn't
>> make it less or more than the chapters whose area cover a country. And
>> sub-national or cross-national chapters also may be established
>> somewhere else than USA, right.
>>
>> As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the
>> Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what
>> is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical?
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hello,

[.it might be useful to move this topic to a dedicated thread if it goes on]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> We hold an annual meeting between all chapters and WMF.
> Already, because of the number of chapters, it is recommanded that only
> one representant of all chapters come to the meeting. Needless to say,
> this limitation is going to largely damage the ability of this meeting
> to build anything.

May I ask some arguments to support this statement?

> Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ?

Yes. As you've already been told, they're not sub-chapters, they're
sub-national chapters.

> If that's the case, I suspect that we will soon have to abandon this
> annual meeting altogether, and will have to replace it by "region" meetings.

Yes, and this was considered during last year's meeting postmortem.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Is it like in "Animal farm" that all countries are equal but some are more
> equal then others? By calling NY a sub chapter, it is inherent that there is
> room for a USA chapter. Each chapter has one vote as I understand it or will
> each subchapter have one as well ??
>
> Originally the notion of a chapter was very much that it was along the lines
> of legislatures. This no longer seems to be relevant or am I missing
> something?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>
>
>
>> Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have
>>>
>> an
>>
>>> USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will
>>>
>> get
>>
>>> all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is
>>>
>> not
>>
>>> that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay.
>>> Thanks,
>>> GerardM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, having a New York chapter pretty ruled out the possibility of
>> establishing a USA chapter. But then, the USA chapter was discussed for
>> quite long time and it is quite unprobably that it would become true in
>> the near future. There are also suggestions that the WM-NYC could serve
>> as a seed and gradually expand its covering area at sometime to become a
>> WM-USA. But that's all speculations. We will see how everything develops.
>>
>> Again, from the view of fundation WM-NYC is not a "sub chapter" but a
>> wholevalue chapter. Its area doesn't covers a nation, but that doesn't
>> make it less or more than the chapters whose area cover a country. And
>> sub-national or cross-national chapters also may be established
>> somewhere else than USA, right.
>>
>> As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the
>> Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what
>> is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical?
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
No, here is nothing with equal or not equal. See, I see the WikiMedia
and its chapters as partners, as companions. WikiMedia as well as its
chapters are organisations that developed out of the community and work
with the community. A chapter may or may not have the same area as a
country. There are many reason that it may have happend as such or not.

As of the voting you mentioned. Voting for what? The only thing I am
aware of that probably would be voted is the selection of the chapters
appointed board of trustees seat. I know that the chapters are working
on this very hard, but I am not sure if they would actually vote on this
matter. Sometime ago I read in one of the mailing lists that the
chapters should work collaboratively with each other and create a
consenses, not by battling with each other by voting for or against this
or that candidate. I like this idea. But as I have said, the chapters
are working on this and I am sure that they will present a good result.

But, looking in the future. There may be at some point that there would
be concern that say the Netherlands has only one chapter and one ballote
while the USA may have let's say five chapters and five ballots. We had
discussed this issue on our october board meeting and we think that if
at some day this concern is raised, we can still decide to change the mode.

To be honours, I don't see what has nations and countries to do with our
chapters? There may be practical reasons for identical with the boundary
of a country or not. I don't like to see it the way USA against the
Netherlands or Taiwan against China. We have no need to incoporate this
madness into our project, have we?

Greetings
Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between
Belgium and the Netherlands. There is no Belgium chapter and given their
politics it is unlikely that there will be one. The projects in the Dutch
language include many Belgians and they are welcome to become a member of
the Dutch "vereniging".

Ting, it is nice that you do not see what countries have to do with
chapters. One of the main points of chapters is that they represent the
Wikimedia Foundation in a limited fashion and, that they take care of issues
that need to be taken care off on a local level. They are things like
fundraising and looking for a tax exempt status for gifts etc. When a
chapter is nothing but a society, there is less need for an official
connection with the WMF. The people in New York can have their own society,
there is no need for them being a chapter and take care by necessity of
these needs.

If you say that a chapter is only a society and that this is all that
counts, I do not understand why it is not permitted to have chapters
covering the same space. Why not have an Amsterdam chapter if the people
from Amsterdam think it a good idea ??
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Is it like in "Animal farm" that all countries are equal but some are
> more
> > equal then others? By calling NY a sub chapter, it is inherent that there
> is
> > room for a USA chapter. Each chapter has one vote as I understand it or
> will
> > each subchapter have one as well ??
> >
> > Originally the notion of a chapter was very much that it was along the
> lines
> > of legislatures. This no longer seems to be relevant or am I missing
> > something?
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > 2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>
> >
> >
> >> Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> >>
> >>> Hoi,
> >>> So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to
> have
> >>>
> >> an
> >>
> >>> USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that
> will
> >>>
> >> get
> >>
> >>> all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is
> >>>
> >> not
> >>
> >>> that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for
> Bombay.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> GerardM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yes, having a New York chapter pretty ruled out the possibility of
> >> establishing a USA chapter. But then, the USA chapter was discussed for
> >> quite long time and it is quite unprobably that it would become true in
> >> the near future. There are also suggestions that the WM-NYC could serve
> >> as a seed and gradually expand its covering area at sometime to become a
> >> WM-USA. But that's all speculations. We will see how everything
> develops.
> >>
> >> Again, from the view of fundation WM-NYC is not a "sub chapter" but a
> >> wholevalue chapter. Its area doesn't covers a nation, but that doesn't
> >> make it less or more than the chapters whose area cover a country. And
> >> sub-national or cross-national chapters also may be established
> >> somewhere else than USA, right.
> >>
> >> As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the
> >> Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what
> >> is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical?
> >>
> >> Greetings
> >> Ting
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> No, here is nothing with equal or not equal. See, I see the WikiMedia
> and its chapters as partners, as companions. WikiMedia as well as its
> chapters are organisations that developed out of the community and work
> with the community. A chapter may or may not have the same area as a
> country. There are many reason that it may have happend as such or not.
>
> As of the voting you mentioned. Voting for what? The only thing I am
> aware of that probably would be voted is the selection of the chapters
> appointed board of trustees seat. I know that the chapters are working
> on this very hard, but I am not sure if they would actually vote on this
> matter. Sometime ago I read in one of the mailing lists that the
> chapters should work collaboratively with each other and create a
> consenses, not by battling with each other by voting for or against this
> or that candidate. I like this idea. But as I have said, the chapters
> are working on this and I am sure that they will present a good result.
>
> But, looking in the future. There may be at some point that there would
> be concern that say the Netherlands has only one chapter and one ballote
> while the USA may have let's say five chapters and five ballots. We had
> discussed this issue on our october board meeting and we think that if
> at some day this concern is raised, we can still decide to change the mode.
>
> To be honours, I don't see what has nations and countries to do with our
> chapters? There may be practical reasons for identical with the boundary
> of a country or not. I don't like to see it the way USA against the
> Netherlands or Taiwan against China. We have no need to incoporate this
> madness into our project, have we?
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [.it might be useful to move this topic to a dedicated thread if it goes on]
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We hold an annual meeting between all chapters and WMF.
>> Already, because of the number of chapters, it is recommanded that only
>> one representant of all chapters come to the meeting. Needless to say,
>> this limitation is going to largely damage the ability of this meeting
>> to build anything.
>
> May I ask some arguments to support this statement?

Sorry. There are two arguments in my sentence. Which one do you want
support for ?

The argument that there will be only one representant is something I
think I read that in one of your document. I may be wrong. I can look
for the information if necessary. But I understood number of
representants will be strongly limited.

Or the fact one representant will damage the ability of the meeting to
build anything ?
Well, yeah, pretty simple.

First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for
discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less.
Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures.
But every year will become more and more difficult. How many people will
join this year Guillom ?

Second, one person may speak in the name of its board on issues they
have discussed previously. Far less on new discussions. And at the end
of the discussion, the representant may not "vote" because legally
speaking, only the entire board can take a decision.
Which means that the meeting may be an opportunity to "meet" and
exchange experiences. But it may not be an opportunity to reach agreements.
If any doubt on this, a show case is the procedure chosen to select the
two representants to the board. One procedure was identified by the
group at last year chapter meeting. But we are doing another procedure
because in the end, most did not agree with the procedure identified
during the meeting. Not to say it was a loss of time of course, but the
meeting can simply not be used as a decision-making time.

Walking on eggs, I will also point out that not all chapters always send
the most appropriate person to this meeting. When two or three people
can come, the chosen people will usually be the chair and the "one
person doing a lot of work at international level and with many
relationships with many chapters". When only one person come, I think in
many cases, the chair will be selected, as representant of the chapters.
And I think this person is not necessarily the best choice.

In the future, we'll have to decide whether we want this annual meeting
to be a "small" one, with max one representative (in which case, it will
mostly be a "sharing experiences" time). Or if we want more a
convention, with open membership (in which case, it will mostly be a
"agreement reaching time").


>
>> Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ?
>
> Yes. As you've already been told, they're not sub-chapters, they're
> sub-national chapters.
>
>> If that's the case, I suspect that we will soon have to abandon this
>> annual meeting altogether, and will have to replace it by "region" meetings.
>
> Yes, and this was considered during last year's meeting postmortem.
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi Florence,

> First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for
> discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less.
> Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures.
> But every year will become more and more difficult. How many people will
> join this year Guillom ?

I don't really see why it would be more difficult. If numbers
increase, we have to change the format of some of the events during
the meeting. We could, for example, have full assembly sessions with
all chapter representatives combined with "committee
meetings/workshops" of a smaller size where not every chapter is
represented. The meeting would turn more into a sort of conference
which, as regards efficiency, isn't a bad thing at all.

> Second, one person may speak in the name of its board on issues they
> have discussed previously. Far less on new discussions. And at the end
> of the discussion, the representant may not "vote" because legally
> speaking, only the entire board can take a decision.

I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within
the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a
representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter.

> Which means that the meeting may be an opportunity to "meet" and
> exchange experiences. But it may not be an opportunity to reach agreements.
> If any doubt on this, a show case is the procedure chosen to select the
> two representants to the board. One procedure was identified by the
> group at last year chapter meeting. But we are doing another procedure
> because in the end, most did not agree with the procedure identified
> during the meeting. Not to say it was a loss of time of course, but the
> meeting can simply not be used as a decision-making time.

On of the main issues I see here was that those attending the chapter
meeting had no "mandate" from their chapters to enter into any sort of
agreement. If that is addressed prior to the next meeting, i.e. each
chapter sends a representative with the necessary mandate to vote, I
don't see why we would not be able to make a decision at the meeting
that binds the chapters that attend.

> Walking on eggs, I will also point out that not all chapters always send
> the most appropriate person to this meeting. When two or three people
> can come, the chosen people will usually be the chair and the "one
> person doing a lot of work at international level and with many
> relationships with many chapters". When only one person come, I think in
> many cases, the chair will be selected, as representant of the chapters.
> And I think this person is not necessarily the best choice.

I would find it ideal to have each chapter send two people. That way,
there's some deliberation possible among representatives from chapters
and less likelihood of scheduling conflicts during the meeting.

> In the future, we'll have to decide whether we want this annual meeting
> to be a "small" one, with max one representative (in which case, it will
> mostly be a "sharing experiences" time). Or if we want more a
> convention, with open membership (in which case, it will mostly be a
> "agreement reaching time").

If we accept some sort of democratic process as the premise of
decision making, open membership creates a range of problems fixed
membership does not. If, for example, each chapter gets two voting
representatives, it's easier to make up the rules that follow
regarding quorum and debate. It's much harder if every chapter can
bring as many as they want.

Sebastian

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Sebastian Moleski wrote:
> Hi Florence,
>
>> First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for
>> discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less.
>> Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures.
>> But every year will become more and more difficult. How many people will
>> join this year Guillom ?
>
> I don't really see why it would be more difficult. If numbers
> increase, we have to change the format of some of the events during
> the meeting. We could, for example, have full assembly sessions with
> all chapter representatives combined with "committee
> meetings/workshops" of a smaller size where not every chapter is
> represented. The meeting would turn more into a sort of conference
> which, as regards efficiency, isn't a bad thing at all.
>
>> Second, one person may speak in the name of its board on issues they
>> have discussed previously. Far less on new discussions. And at the end
>> of the discussion, the representant may not "vote" because legally
>> speaking, only the entire board can take a decision.
>
> I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within
> the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a
> representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter.

This should be checked by a lawyer, but imho, that's not correct, at
least in France. Of course, this would depend on which types of
decisions. If the decisions were completely operational and if the
chapter has an ED, and if the decision is within the range of the
strategy defined by the board, it's entirely okay that the ED makes the
decision.

However, in most other cases, I do not think that's okay. The
responsability of the organisation is in the hands of the entire board.
Not one member. Even if the member receives the delegation to *vote* at
the meeting, I believe the decision can be cancelled afterwards if the
board is not in agreement.


>> Which means that the meeting may be an opportunity to "meet" and
>> exchange experiences. But it may not be an opportunity to reach agreements.
>> If any doubt on this, a show case is the procedure chosen to select the
>> two representants to the board. One procedure was identified by the
>> group at last year chapter meeting. But we are doing another procedure
>> because in the end, most did not agree with the procedure identified
>> during the meeting. Not to say it was a loss of time of course, but the
>> meeting can simply not be used as a decision-making time.
>
> On of the main issues I see here was that those attending the chapter
> meeting had no "mandate" from their chapters to enter into any sort of
> agreement. If that is addressed prior to the next meeting, i.e. each
> chapter sends a representative with the necessary mandate to vote, I
> don't see why we would not be able to make a decision at the meeting
> that binds the chapters that attend.
>
>> Walking on eggs, I will also point out that not all chapters always send
>> the most appropriate person to this meeting. When two or three people
>> can come, the chosen people will usually be the chair and the "one
>> person doing a lot of work at international level and with many
>> relationships with many chapters". When only one person come, I think in
>> many cases, the chair will be selected, as representant of the chapters.
>> And I think this person is not necessarily the best choice.
>
> I would find it ideal to have each chapter send two people. That way,
> there's some deliberation possible among representatives from chapters
> and less likelihood of scheduling conflicts during the meeting.
>
>> In the future, we'll have to decide whether we want this annual meeting
>> to be a "small" one, with max one representative (in which case, it will
>> mostly be a "sharing experiences" time). Or if we want more a
>> convention, with open membership (in which case, it will mostly be a
>> "agreement reaching time").
>
> If we accept some sort of democratic process as the premise of
> decision making, open membership creates a range of problems fixed
> membership does not. If, for example, each chapter gets two voting
> representatives, it's easier to make up the rules that follow
> regarding quorum and debate. It's much harder if every chapter can
> bring as many as they want.

Sorry, I meant "open membership" but within the board pool (and probably
ED pool :-)). If 5/9 board members are present at the meeting, they
constitute a quorum and their decision is *legal*. Of course, the
chapter may have one or two votes within the entire group.

Ant


>
> Sebastian
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l