Mailing List Archive

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew, the NYC does not need my approval but given what I know of their
> activities so far, they are doing great. This does however not mean that the
> issues that are raised have been answered, far from it.

You have not raised any issues, only vague and unsupported statements
about the inferiority of the chapter, or it's inability to perform
certain activities. This chapter is at no disadvantage, and has no
"issues" that all our other chapters do not have as well. If I have no
addressed these "issues" you mention, it is because they do not exist.

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> These "emotional" arguments are not practical. In my opinion
> there is a need for a USA chapter because there are things that
> the Office should not handle and that should be handled by an
> USA chapter.

First you say emotions are pointless, then you express your own
emotions. Are you, Gerard, going to set up this nation-wide U.S.
chapter or is it still the same hypothetical idea that it has been
for the last five years? This discussion would be helped if we
refrain from inventing hypothetical cases, and instead focus on
the organizations that actually exist, such as the NYC chapter.


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

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

Thanks again for your explanations (I don't want to open a new mail for
every bit).

Some points:
* Of the organizations Lars mentioned, only ISOC has "chapters". I still
find it not clear about whether the national organizations are independent
or merely national agencies of the center (as it is the case with
Greenpeace).
* In this discussion, it is irrelevant how many people live in a sub
national area, or how large the country is (there are chapters in small and
in large countries already).
* It is also irrelevant whether individuals choose to be member in a chapter
that does not belong to the nation state they live in, like nationals of
France living abroad (as Florence has explained well), or Belgians who go to
the Dutch chapter as long as they don't have own of their own.
* It is irrelevant whether the New Yorkers do a good job (I never doubted
that). The Wikimedians of Cologne do a good job aswell, but they are no
chapter.
* If the Wikimedians in the USA did not manage to create a national chapter,
it is not my fault. Why can't there be a Wikimedia US? I don't know the
reason: Large and ethnically diverse countries have WM chapters, other
movements have US chapters...
* Hongkong and Taiwan are special cases; not "nations" or "countries"
different to PR China, but different "states" or "systems".
* "Sub national chapters" in the US states make WMF the default Wikimedia
US, dealing with American institutions and personalities in a way usually a
chapter would. American Wikimedians have no reason to take effort for a WMUS
if they see this and that they can have US states chapters.
* The world is divided into countries, like it or not, and this has
consequences for us.

Ziko


--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

It is extraordinarily difficult to found a US chapter, because we are in essence a federation of 50 little nations. Every state has their own unique characteristics and their own unique laws. Also, we do not have interest for a national chapter. By empowering these state/city chapters, we provide the willing with an outreach organization while leaving it open for other regions.




________________________________
From: Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 7:44:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Thanks again for your explanations (I don't want to open a new mail for
every bit).

Some points:
* Of the organizations Lars mentioned, only ISOC has "chapters". I still
find it not clear about whether the national organizations are independent
or merely national agencies of the center (as it is the case with
Greenpeace).
* In this discussion, it is irrelevant how many people live in a sub
national area, or how large the country is (there are chapters in small and
in large countries already).
* It is also irrelevant whether individuals choose to be member in a chapter
that does not belong to the nation state they live in, like nationals of
France living abroad (as Florence has explained well), or Belgians who go to
the Dutch chapter as long as they don't have own of their own.
* It is irrelevant whether the New Yorkers do a good job (I never doubted
that). The Wikimedians of Cologne do a good job aswell, but they are no
chapter.
* If the Wikimedians in the USA did not manage to create a national chapter,
it is not my fault. Why can't there be a Wikimedia US? I don't know the
reason: Large and ethnically diverse countries have WM chapters, other
movements have US chapters...
* Hongkong and Taiwan are special cases; not "nations" or "countries"
different to PR China, but different "states" or "systems".
* "Sub national chapters" in the US states make WMF the default Wikimedia
US, dealing with American institutions and personalities in a way usually a
chapter would. American Wikimedians have no reason to take effort for a WMUS
if they see this and that they can have US states chapters.
* The world is divided into countries, like it or not, and this has
consequences for us.

Ziko


--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________
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

2009/1/21 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>:
> It is extraordinarily difficult to found a US chapter, because we are in essence a federation of 50 little nations. Every state has their own unique characteristics and their own unique laws. Also, we do not have interest for a national chapter. By empowering these state/city chapters, we provide the willing with an outreach organization while leaving it open for other regions.

If the US sub-national chapters were clearly done along state lines,
that argument would work, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

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

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com> wrote:
> * Of the organizations Lars mentioned, only ISOC has "chapters". I still
> find it not clear about whether the national organizations are independent
> or merely national agencies of the center (as it is the case with
> Greenpeace).

IEEE uses the term "Sections", to basically describe the same
construct. However, IEEE sections are arranged in a way that even we
might find strange: They have several chapters in the US alone, and
one chapter that covers all of Africa, Asia, and Oceania. The reasons
for this are the number and distribution of electrical engineers.

> * It is also irrelevant whether individuals choose to be member in a chapter
> that does not belong to the nation state they live in, like nationals of
> France living abroad (as Florence has explained well), or Belgians who go to
> the Dutch chapter as long as they don't have own of their own.

Some chapters do stipulate in their bylaws that to become a member you
must "live or work" in the chapter's geographic area. I don't know how
common it is amongst our existing chapters, but I have seen it on more
then one occasion.

> * If the Wikimedians in the USA did not manage to create a national chapter,
> it is not my fault. Why can't there be a Wikimedia US? I don't know the
> reason: Large and ethnically diverse countries have WM chapters, other
> movements have US chapters...

Organizers decide what is best for themselves. If organizers in the
USA think it's better to create community-oriented groups, that is
their prerogative. It is not you who decides if there will be a
Wikimedia US, and it is not me who decides it either: The organizers
decide that, and they have decided to pursue locally-based chapters
instead of a nationally-based one. There is no "fault" because there
is no problem.

> * "Sub national chapters" in the US states make WMF the default Wikimedia
> US, dealing with American institutions and personalities in a way usually a
> chapter would. American Wikimedians have no reason to take effort for a WMUS
> if they see this and that they can have US states chapters.

This is perhaps a factor, but then how do you explain situations like
Canada and India where organizers have tried unsuccessfully to create
a national chapter and are now pursuing sub-national ones instead?

> * The world is divided into countries, like it or not, and this has
> consequences for us.

And countries are divided into states and provinces and
municipalities, like it or not, and this has consequences for us.

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:13 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>
>> Nathan wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> It was my understanding from the sub-national chapters document that
>>>> such chapters might be permitted to form anyway:
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters
>>>> (Question: "Aren't we setting up sub-national chapters to compete
>>>> for
>>>> funding with nation-based chapters?")
>>>>
>>>> What I'm taking your statement to mean is that when a subnational
>>>> chapter is formed where a national chapter could be later formed,
>>>> the
>>>> overlap and potential harmful consequences of such overlap would
>>>> have
>>>> to be carefully considered before national chapter is approved.
>>>> Would
>>>> that be a fair characterization? Or are you meaning 'is not
>>>> possible'
>>>> truly in the sense of 'will never happen'?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Earlier in this thread, Ting clearly stated that recognition of a
>>> sub-national chapter meant a national chapter could not later be
>>> formed.
>>> Andrew Whitworth indicated the same. Is that not the definitive
>>> answer to
>>> the question?
>>>
>>> Nathan
>>>
>> This would be real bad, because it could exclude entire areas that do
>> not drain sufficient memberships or funds to be able to really
>> create a
>> sustainable chapter.
>>
>> That could be typically the case of a country with two big cities
>> and a
>> big rural area. Two chapters could be created in each city, leaving
>> all
>> wikipedians in the rural areas helpless. If such was to happen, I hope
>> WMF would either accept the creation of a national chapter, or
>> negotiate
>> with the city-chapters so that they can extend membership to
>> neighbours.
>>
>> Note that this is already the case for many national chapters. In the
>> French one, we host a couple of people living in Switzerland ('cause
>> they are French in nationality), as well as from Belgium and
>> Luxembourg,
>> ('cause these nations have no chapter).
>>
>> I suspect a consensus will need to be found, so that 1) no harm is
>> made
>> to current chapter and 2) no one be excluded which would defeat the
>> process.
>>
>> As such, flexibility should be a must.
>>
>> Ant
>>
>>
>
> I agree with your concern here Florence, but I don't see anything
> saying that national chapters cannot form if there is a sub national
> chapter there. I don't quite know where Ting extrapolates "chapters
> should have well defined geographical areas and they should not
> overlap" into "If we have a sub national chapter, we cannot have a
> parent national chapter"; it sounds like a misreading of "Should not"
> into "Must not".
>
> I can think of several good reasons why sub-national chapters should
> not preclude a national chapter; not the least of which being the
> concerns raised by Florence, but also situations in places such as
> China where subnational chapters in one area of the country may not
> adequately represent the rest of the country.
>
> Was this some sort of unilateral proclamation by Ting, or has the
> chapters committee officially made some sort of decision on this topic?
>
> -Dan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
This is my conclusion out of the "no overlapping areas" criteria. I may
be wrong. I don't think that the concern of Florence is really a serious
one. In many countries, for example Agentina, where we already have a
chapter, a few cities are the absolute cultural center of the country,
but in these cases there's no sense to constrain a chapter only in the
cities. They can easily be established as national chapters, like
Agentina. Another example is NYC is not constrained in the city, but has
its area including the whole state. At the moment we have no cases where
we have conflicts here, and I see no situation, which cannot be
negotiated by one way or the other. Last but not least, if there are
indeed grave conflicts and it is unsoluble according to the current
rule, I don't see that rules are unchangable. We have come so far and
have solved so much problems I don't think that we would one day die on
this problem.

Greetings
Ting

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

Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was
>> very tiny having two chapters?
>>
> If the very tiny country had enough active wikimedians to create
> critical mass for two chapters, and if those two groups found that
> they absolutely could not work together and that it would be far
> easier for them to organize separately, then yes that would be okay.
>
To clarify, I'm not sure that "absolutely could not work together" is
the best description of the criteria. Our culture is built on
collaboration and cooperation, and I expect that all chapters should be
able to work together when the occasion calls for it. So the question is
to me is whether there's value in having two different organizations,
enough to justify the overhead of building the second one.

Suppose we had a Wikimedia Istanbul, and hypothetically its members on
either side of the Bosporus don't want to work together, that wouldn't
be a reason to allow a separate chapter. But if it somehow actually
mattered whether people were in Europe or in Asia, then that might be a
reason to have two chapters there.

--Michael Snow

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

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:
> To clarify, I'm not sure that "absolutely could not work together" is
> the best description of the criteria. Our culture is built on
> collaboration and cooperation, and I expect that all chapters should be
> able to work together when the occasion calls for it. So the question is
> to me is whether there's value in having two different organizations,
> enough to justify the overhead of building the second one.

I agree with you on this point, but I don't think it's for us (board,
chapcom, etc) to decide whether the additional overhead is called for.
Obviously we should make all the information and caveats known to all
applicant groups before they are approved to become a chapter, but
they really have to be relied upon to make the final decisions
concerning themselves.

> Suppose we had a Wikimedia Istanbul, and hypothetically its members on
> either side of the Bosporus don't want to work together, that wouldn't
> be a reason to allow a separate chapter. But if it somehow actually
> mattered whether people were in Europe or in Asia, then that might be a
> reason to have two chapters there.

Chapters may want to focus on local works. The Istanbul chapter may
want to focus it's attention on activities that happen in and around
Istanbul only. People from Ankara could join the chapter but would be
excluded from it's activities because of distance. As much as we might
like the Istanbul chapter to expand it's focus to cover the entire
country, they might find themselves unwilling or unable to do so. Do
we then keep the people of Ankara from forming a second chapter in
Turkey because of it?

WMNYC has focused it's energy towards on-the-ground and in-person
activities like "Wikipedia Loves Art", or "Wikis Take Manhattan".
People who are too far away will not be able to participate in these
activities. You could say that they could be a national group and
organize other events in other cities. But then you would have
separate groups within the chapter organizing and participating in
separate activities with no meaningful interaction between them. If a
smaller regional chapter can pay more attention to it's members,
foster better cooperation, and support more outreach activities by
virtue of being able to focus on a smaller geographical area, I think
that's a major benefit to consider.

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Florence Devouard wrote:

> The confusion mostly came from the fact I had absolutely not
> understood that chapters at the national level, or chapter at
> any other level would have exactly the same rights and roles
> than the currently existing chapters.

I'm confused by your description of chapters as a tool for "having
rights" or "having roles". I'm also skeptic to the chapters voting
for board members of the foundation. That is a privilege that I
never asked for. (This is just my personal view.)

For me, a chapter is a tool to achieve things locally that I can't
achieve as an individual Wikipedia contributor (because they
require cooperation and money), and which the central organization
of the Foundation wouldn't do in my local area (because they are
local), such as organizing the Wikipedia Academy. That's all a
chapter is to me. And for this, both Wikimedia Sverige and
Wikimedia New York City seem to be of the appropriate size.

Coming from a small European country, I also fear that if
Europeans insist that the U.S. should only have a single
nation-wide chapter, some Americans might insist that the European
Union should only be allowed one single chapter. I wouldn't like
that. And I will protest against any plan to formalize the bond
between European chapters. I want each chapter to communicate
directly with the Foundation, instead of going through some EU
level intermediary. Again, this is my personal view.


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

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

Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>> The confusion mostly came from the fact I had absolutely not
>> understood that chapters at the national level, or chapter at
>> any other level would have exactly the same rights and roles
>> than the currently existing chapters.
>>
> I'm confused by your description of chapters as a tool for "having
> rights" or "having roles". I'm also skeptic to the chapters voting
> for board members of the foundation. That is a privilege that I
> never asked for. (This is just my personal view.)
>
Understanding that it wasn't asked for, and some people may not want it,
however the chapters have at points expressed concern about whether the
foundation adequately considers their needs. It therefore seemed
sensible to create a structural connection in this way while not
undermining the chapters' position as independent entities. And we have
the ongoing challenge of finding enough suitable board members to
effectively oversee the organization, for which no process we've tried
so far has proved exactly perfect. So for now we have a variety in the
hopes that each avenue can bring some benefit to the table.

Anyway, I mostly agree that it's not so much about "having rights" as it
is about how to help the fundamental mission. Having a "role" is
somewhere in between, as it could incorporate either aspect. Asserting
certain "rights" makes no sense unless you can articulate the
corresponding responsibilities you've assumed and how you're fulfilling
those. In this I speak as much about individuals (those claiming
entitlements on-wiki) as about the chapters. Focusing on how to make a
positive contribution is a useful substitute.

--Michael Snow

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

Michael Snow wrote:
> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>> Florence Devouard wrote:
>>
>>> The confusion mostly came from the fact I had absolutely not
>>> understood that chapters at the national level, or chapter at
>>> any other level would have exactly the same rights and roles
>>> than the currently existing chapters.
>>>
>> I'm confused by your description of chapters as a tool for "having
>> rights" or "having roles". I'm also skeptic to the chapters voting
>> for board members of the foundation. That is a privilege that I
>> never asked for. (This is just my personal view.)



We know that chapters hold different roles, but most of these roles
focus around
* collecting money which may be used for the projects good
* informing the public about the projects, open source, free knowledge
etc...
* being a public face whenever it is necessary, in particular in front
of the press, public institutions, governments

These roles could be held by simple individuals, but it would be much
tougher. Can you imagine yourself, as an independant person, raising
money for the projects, collecting the money on your bank account and
then shipping the money to the USA ?
I guess not.
By and large, the role of the chapters is simply to provide a framework,
a squelettum, to make it easier for wikimedians to *do things* that they
can not easily do as individuals.
That may go from "having a bank account to raise money" to "providing
semi-business cards making it easier to talk to museum directors" or
"providing a room to hold a photo-workshop" or "bringing leaflets to a
conference".

Note that in my mind, the chapters do not restrict the plateform to
their members. The members of the chapters run the plateform. But the
plateform may be used by a much larger membership. As such, the activity
of the chapter benefit a very large community and not only its legal
membership.

--> The main role is of being a facilitating plateform.


The main right of the chapter is the one of using the brand (such as
having the right to be called Wikimedia xxx, a sign of recognition that
we belong to the family).

And forgive me if I dare a biological comparison.

Do you know that your body hosts millions, if not billions of bacteria ?
At first glance, these bacteria are not very useful.

Then, if you look more carefully, some of these bacterias play very
important direct roles, such as in digestion.
In other cases, in particular for microorganisms living on your skin, it
is really not obvious what those are useful for.

But after further considerations, you will realize that the role of
those is simply... to be there. To occupy the place. And prevent other
microorganisms, nasty ones, from colonizing the place.

My argument would be that the chapters second the Foundation in
protecting the brand ... in making sure that it is used for "positive"
reasons (going in the direction of our commonly agreed vision), and
making sure it is NOT used for wrong directions.
Straight example: Wikimedia France owns and protect "wikipedia.fr".
Wikimedia Russia could own wikipedia.ru (which is for sale)
If Wikimedia Spain existed, it could have protected the domain and
avoided that: http://wikipedia.es/
Locally, simply by existing, and by being a focus, institutions will
come to chapters rather to going to random wikipedians. And by going to
a group clearly identified and unified by a clear mission and shared
values, institutions will hear about this mission and these values.
When no local focus exist, and WMF is so far away, across the globe,
sharks gather and act in way which do not reflect what we desire our
projects to be.

As such, I would consider that...

The second main role of the chapter is to protect what can and need to
be protected, such as our logo, our name, our licence, our mission, our
values, our dream. I believe participating to electing our WMF trustees
participate to this role of protection (but this might not be commonly
agreed).

Ant


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

Thats why i said state/city. Even within states, business licenses have to be procured for each city/county




________________________________
From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:36:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

2009/1/21 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>:
> It is extraordinarily difficult to found a US chapter, because we are in essence a federation of 50 little nations. Every state has their own unique characteristics and their own unique laws. Also, we do not have interest for a national chapter. By empowering these state/city chapters, we provide the willing with an outreach organization while leaving it open for other regions.

If the US sub-national chapters were clearly done along state lines,
that argument would work, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

_______________________________________________
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 Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 14:49, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was
>> very tiny having two chapters?
>
> If the very tiny country had enough active wikimedians to create
> critical mass for two chapters, and if those two groups found that
> they absolutely could not work together and that it would be far
> easier for them to organize separately, then yes that would be okay.
> The size of the region isn't nearly so important as other factors like
> activity level. We also cannot pretend that we know how people in
> country X should organize better then those people do themselves.
> Organizers will tell us what's right for them, we do not tell them
> what is right for them (although we can always make thoughtful
> suggestions).

I completely disagree with your analysis here.

No, if a very tiny country had enough wikimedians to create critical
mass to create two chapters, _and if those two groups found that they
absolutely could not work together_ (even if it's easier), then no,
the Wikimedia Foundation should never ever agree to recognize both
chapters. Chapters _must_ make sense. Actually, this is true of tiny
or big countries.

A NYC chapter makes sense, because today, there is no other "chapter"
that will not go and act in New York without consulting with the
chapter. And the WMF operates on a different level. Two, three, twenty
groups (however active) that potentially have the exact same
interlocutors should not be allowed to be called "Wikimedia" and be
given the name of chapter.

This is where we might want to have national chapters precluding
sub-national chapters "that make sense". Belgium in that regard is an
interesting example. If you let a Wikimedia Belgie-only-dutch-speaking
chapter happen, or a Wikimedia Belgique-only-French-speaking chapter
happen (as was proposed a looong time ago), you are stuck with the
fact that Wikimedia Belgium is in one language and not in the other.
However, setting aside all cultural and linguistic aspects of the
country, which are real, and even legal aspects which might be
different depending the "region", the "national institutions" are
_national_. As such, they should have one interlocutor and one only.
This said, in Belgium, it might make perfect sense to have two
sections of the same chapter, one that will focus on one language
and/or regional institutions, the other on the other.

And in my opinion, it also would be ok if one group of people focused
on one language was to start the chapter, with little involvement from
the other language(s), as long as the bylaws would reflect this
diversity and allow for other to join.


Delphine

--
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

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

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com> wrote:
> I completely disagree with your analysis here.
>
> No, if a very tiny country had enough wikimedians to create critical
> mass to create two chapters, _and if those two groups found that they
> absolutely could not work together_ (even if it's easier), then no,
> the Wikimedia Foundation should never ever agree to recognize both
> chapters. Chapters _must_ make sense. Actually, this is true of tiny
> or big countries.
>
> A NYC chapter makes sense, because today, there is no other "chapter"
> that will not go and act in New York without consulting with the
> chapter. And the WMF operates on a different level. Two, three, twenty
> groups (however active) that potentially have the exact same
> interlocutors should not be allowed to be called "Wikimedia" and be
> given the name of chapter.

Disagreement is fine! We're obviously dealing with a lot of
hypotheticals here. I guess maybe I should have stipulated that the
two chapters in the tiny country be mutually-exclusive and
non-overlapping. We don't have two chapters operating in New York City
simultaneously, but we could definitely have two regional chapters
operating in the country simultaneously.

What we want is for Wikimedians to be able to join _A_ chapter if they
are interested, but we don't want them to have to choose between
multiple options. There either is a chapter in your area that you can
join, or your area is free for the creation of a new chapter. If we
have critical mass to support two chapters in a given country (no
matter how tiny), and if they don't overlap and if they don't
interfere with each other, I think they should be allowed to organize
themselves in that way.

Now, realistically I think this whole issue is a non-starter. I don't
suspect we are going to see places that are both sufficiently "tiny"
_and_ have the critical mass needed to support two chapters. I think
you and I have both seen, Delphine, that creating a new chapter takes
a lot of work and there are precious few people willing and able to
make it happen. Chapters don't just spring to life out of thin air,
and they don't multiply like rabbits. I think it may be quite a long
time until we see a second US chapter, much less before we get two
applications from Luxembourg. While I don't think we should draw a
line and say all countries smaller then a certain size can't qualify
for subnational chapters, I also don't forsee that countries below a
certain size threshold are going to be interested in it anyway.

> This is where we might want to have national chapters precluding
> sub-national chapters "that make sense". Belgium in that regard is an
> interesting example. If you let a Wikimedia Belgie-only-dutch-speaking
> chapter happen, or a Wikimedia Belgique-only-French-speaking chapter
> happen (as was proposed a looong time ago), you are stuck with the
> fact that Wikimedia Belgium is in one language and not in the other.
> However, setting aside all cultural and linguistic aspects of the
> country, which are real, and even legal aspects which might be
> different depending the "region", the "national institutions" are
> _national_. As such, they should have one interlocutor and one only.
> This said, in Belgium, it might make perfect sense to have two
> sections of the same chapter, one that will focus on one language
> and/or regional institutions, the other on the other.

Right, every country is going to pose different situations, and
Belgium might not make sense to separate into two chapters if there
aren't clear geographic boundaries between the two. Creating new
chapters isn't an excuse to avoid working and collaborating with
people who are different from yourself, but it should instead be a
vehicle for overcoming barriers and getting people involved. If
language barriers are accompanied by clear geographic barriers, that
is a good use case for separate chapters.

> And in my opinion, it also would be ok if one group of people focused
> on one language was to start the chapter, with little involvement from
> the other language(s), as long as the bylaws would reflect this
> diversity and allow for other to join.

This is similar to what had been happening with the Canadian group,
where most of their organizing was being done in english but they were
trying to get more french-speakers involved as well. Our projects are
multilingual, and I think in most cases we should expect our chapters
to support that as well. However, if language is one of several
barriers that prevent Wikimedians from getting involved, then separate
chapters should be created to help get more people to participate.

--Andrew Whitworth

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