Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Delphine Ménard  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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Delphine Ménard]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 14:49, Andrew Whitworth  wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>  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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Geoffrey Plourde]

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





From: Thomas Dalton 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:36:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

2009/1/21 Geoffrey Plourde :
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Florence Devouard]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Michael Snow]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Lars Aronsson]

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 (l...@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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Michael Snow  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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Michael Snow]

Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>  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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Ziko van Dijk  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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Ting Chen]

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   
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
 2009/1/20 Ting Chen :
 
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/1/21 Geoffrey Plourde :
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Geoffrey Plourde]

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 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Ziko van Dijk]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Lars Aronsson]

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 (l...@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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen
 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Lars Aronsson]

Ziko van Dijk wrote:

> By the way, this word "chapter" is unfamiliar for me, a German. 
> I did not hear it before I became a Wikimedian. What does this 
> English word mean?

It's the same word as the German "Kapitel" as used by the (Roman 
Catholic) church (Domkapitel, Stiftskapitel).  It represents a 
regional subdivision of a large organization (or a portion of a 
book). The word "chapter" is used in many international 
organizations such as IEEE, ISOC and (I think) the Red Cross.
Many of these have chapters for each country in Europe and for 
each corner of the United States.  That is precisely the model the 
Wikimedia Foundation has now adopted.

Read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter
or http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapitel


-- 
  Lars Aronsson (l...@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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
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. The NYC is likely to be as
active as any other chapter. My issue is not with their activities, I
welcome them. My issue is that certain things need to be addressed on a
National level and this is NOT what the NYC is best placed to do, they are
largely handled by the office at the moment and this is imho not good.
Thanks,
 GerardM

2009/1/21 Lars Aronsson 

> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>
> > Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc.
> > makes France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York.
>
> And in some ways they are.  If that makes you feel bad, that's
> your problem. Did you feel better when there was no chapter at all
> in the United States?  Apparently, no nation-wide chapter was
> forming.  Were you going to set one up?
>
> Having Wikimedia Deutschland (Germany) and France next to
> Wikimedia Sverige (Sweden) and Norge (Norway) make these countries
> look equal.  How do you feel about that?
>
> The greater New York City urban area has a population (18 million)
> twice as big as Sweden's (9 million) and almost four times that of
> Norway (4.8 million).
>
> The distance from New York City to Chicago, where the next
> sub-national chapter might be, is 1000 km, or roughly that from
> Paris to Warsaw.
>
>
> --
>  Lars Aronsson (l...@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
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Lars Aronsson]

Ziko van Dijk wrote:

> Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. 
> makes France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York.

And in some ways they are.  If that makes you feel bad, that's 
your problem. Did you feel better when there was no chapter at all 
in the United States?  Apparently, no nation-wide chapter was 
forming.  Were you going to set one up?

Having Wikimedia Deutschland (Germany) and France next to 
Wikimedia Sverige (Sweden) and Norge (Norway) make these countries 
look equal.  How do you feel about that?

The greater New York City urban area has a population (18 million) 
twice as big as Sweden's (9 million) and almost four times that of 
Norway (4.8 million).

The distance from New York City to Chicago, where the next 
sub-national chapter might be, is 1000 km, or roughly that from 
Paris to Warsaw.


-- 
  Lars Aronsson (l...@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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Without the five persons that make the difference, there is no chapter
anyway.

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.

Your realisation that several national chapters have not been performing as
they should is correct. It is however not the issue that we are discussing.
At the same time Ting indicated that the board takes this seriously and this
gives me hope that non performance is not without consequence.
Thanks,
 GerardM

2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth 

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > When the right five friends come together, they do not need their dog to
> > make a successful organisation. Five people are enough to make a bored,
> five
> > people are enough to raise money. It takes dedication and a lot of
> effort.
>
> 5 people is not critical mass, and I cannot imagine that the chapcom
> would approve a potential chapter that has only 5 members. 5 people
> can do many wonderful things, but that does not make them a chapter.
>
> > Ting ruled out the existence of an USA chapter because of the existence
> of
> > the New York chapter. It is equally clear that the WMF organisation does
> not
> > want to fulfill the role of an USA chapter. When Dan asks me and Anthere
> not
> > to use the "sub-chapter" word, he is right in that the board names them a
> > chapter, but the issue of the New York chapter having fewer abilities and
> > responsibilities is conveniently swept under the carpet in this way.
>
> This is all blatantly false. What "abilities" and "responsibilities"
> are not available to WMNYC that our other national-level chapters
> have? Besides the fact that the WMF itself is based on the USA and
> therefore is more able to enter into business agreements with
> companies here then in other countries, I see no limitation on this or
> any other subnational chapter. Do not assume that this group is at any
> disadvantage compared to our other national chapters. In fact, this
> chapter is in BETTER shape then some of our national chapters are,
> having already sponsored a number of outreach projects, creating
> working relationships with other organizations, and soliciting
> high-profile donations from museums and other content repositories. We
> have national chapters that have not had as much activity in the last
> year that WMNYC has had in the last two months.
>
> > The prefix sub indicates that it is less then the norm. For me it is
> obvious
> > that some great five or more people will make the NYC a success. What I
> want
> > to learn is in what way the national concerns that I expect a functional
> > chapter to take care off will be handled for the USA. This is the crucial
> > bit of thinking, information that is missing. And as long as this is not
> > clear, the NYC is a sub-par to me.
>
> WMNYC does not need to impress you, and does not need your approval
> Gerard. Their success will be measured in volunteers, donation
> dollars, and media contributed to our projects. What "national
> concerns" do you expect that they will not be able to address? Our
> "sub-national" nomenclature indicates only that they are smaller in
> size then the country that contains them, nothing more. If I called
> them a "super-municipal chapter" or a "regional chapter", would your
> opinion of them improve? If I called our current chapters "sub-global"
> or "sub-continental", would that change your opinion of them too?
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
 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).

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Michael Bimmler]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Dan Rosenthal  wrote:

> Was this some sort of unilateral proclamation by Ting, or has the
> chapters committee officially made some sort of decision on this topic?

A principal decision on sub-national chapters has been made by the
*board* (the "Framework..." document), after *input* from ChapCom.

M.



-- 
Michael Bimmler
mbimm...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Dan Rosenthal]

On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:13 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller   
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/1/20 Ting Chen :
 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Jimmy Wales 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.
>>
>> 
Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was
very tiny having two chapters?

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

This has to be correct, but I really wonder... can they be.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen





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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Florence Devouard]

Nathan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 
>> 2009/1/20 Ting Chen :
>>> 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


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Florence Devouard]

I apology. I'll use the proper terminology in the future.

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 did not mean to belittle the recently created chapter.
Please also note that I never questionned the necessity for USA to need 
or not need something, but originally thought these chapters would not 
have the same rights and as such wanted to be able to identify them by 
those rights.
As long as it is actually the same, I have no further comments or questions.


Ant

Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Florence and Gerard,
> 
> Could you perhaps not insist on using the non-existent term "sub-chapters"?
> If we're going to rehash the ages old discussion on US chapters and "what
> does a chapter do" and "Why does the US need this" and other such dead
> horses, it'd be nice if we all used the proper terminology. Thanks.
> 
> -Dan
> 
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Cary Bass  wrote:
> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Florence Devouard wrote:
>>> 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 "
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> J
>> I fail to see the distinction. A sub-national chapter and a national
>> chapter are both still full chapters; as opposed to something which
>> would be considered a sub-chapter--which would be completely
>> different. I don't see how the Board has to rephrase anything.
>>
>> Cary
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iD8DBQFJdg2/yQg4JSymDYkRAlxGAKCQLW6F4DF3Bauer217fExL8y+mrgCgriCo
>> THpeVBxX/ZUhlIfaAZYjX/c=
>> =9WQb
>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Florence Devouard]

Mike Godwin wrote:
> Florence writes:
> 
>>> The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area
>>> negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and
>>> names.
>> Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation.
>> The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement.
>> Afaik, only one chapter has.
>> When propositions are received, either we forward them to the  
>> Foundation
>> and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we
>> can not negociate.
> 
> After ongoing review of the chapter agreements, both as templates and  
> as they have been specifically implemented, I believe Florence's  
> characterization here is fundamentally correct. In general, the  
> chapter agreements as they are implemented nowadays do not delegate to  
> the chapters the right to negotiate business propositions regarding  
> wikimedia project logos. I should add that I have not reviewed every  
> single chapter agreement (notably, I haven't reviewed the German  
> chapter agreement), and that in the course of trying to regularize  
> chapter agreements we have discovered that our records of chapter  
> agreements are incomplete, or at least scattered. (This is not a  
> result of the relocation to San Francisco -- I think the records were  
> disorganized or complete prior to the move.)
> 
> Among my goals for this calendar year are (a) improving record-keeping  
> of the specific chapter agreements, (b) harmonizing, to the extent  
> possible, the chapter agreements so that there is a fairly standard  
> understanding of what chapters may do or are likely to do as a  
> function of their agreement with WMF, (c) improving chapter agreements  
> in terms of trademark management and brand identification. We have  
> asked the Stanford Law School Organizations and Transactions Clinic to  
> work with us on reviewing and revising our standard chapters agreement  
> this year, and if our previous experience with them is any guide, we  
> expect this collaboration to be fruitful.

Good to read :-)

Go for it !

By the way, we still have not received the signed agreement for 
the fundraiser. Since we raised 50 000 euros or so, that means WMF could 
loose the control of possibly 20 000 euros. Can you make sure we get 
that paper so that we can start discussing means to use this money for 
international goal ? Otherwise, we keep it all ! I mean... one thing we 
can not complain about WMF is acting like a sharp ;-) 

hihi

ant

> On another topic, for what it's worth, I find it clearer to think of  
> "subnational chapters" rather than "subchapters."
> 
> 
> --Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Geoffrey Plourde]

Nathan, a sub national chapter does not preclude a national chapter. I am 
unable to foresee a national chapter in places where we are implementing sub 
national chapters, making this a moot point.  





From: Nathan 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:07:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> 2009/1/20 Ting Chen :
> > 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



-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Michael Snow]

Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> I suspect it's not "will never happen", but instead is "should only
> happen after very careful consideration and agreement". If there is a
> country with an existing sub-national chapter and an organization
> effort to create a national one, I think we would all suggest that the
> subnational chapter redefine it's region to become a national chapter,
> instead of allowing two separate groups to overlap. Even if it's not a
> "problem", it still seems like a needless waste of effort for two
> groups to be doing the same things in the same region.
>   
What I consider the most plausible case is existing sub-national 
chapters joining to form a national one. Perhaps at some point a 
Wikimedia Texas, Wikimedia Chicago, and Wikimedia New York might decide 
there is a benefit to organizing Wikimedia US, in which case I expect 
the "careful consideration and agreement" would apply. On the other 
hand, if there's an effort to create Wikimedia US because of a schism 
within Wikimedia Texas, that's not what we're looking for.

As for potential overlap, mostly I'd be concerned that chapters not 
insist on maintaining "claims" to territory they can't effectively 
serve. If a chapter based in New York City manages to cover the entire 
state and region, we might eventually call it something like Wikimedia 
Northeast US instead. If it can't do that, then it should not make 
itself an obstacle to creating a Wikimedia Boston or Philadelphia when 
the time comes.

--Michael Snow

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 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?")

The sub-national chapters document did hint that overlapping wasn't a
problem, but enough "what if" disaster scenarios have been suggested
that we are probably not going to approve any overlapping chapters
anyway. At least, not yet.

> 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'?

I suspect it's not "will never happen", but instead is "should only
happen after very careful consideration and agreement". If there is a
country with an existing sub-national chapter and an organization
effort to create a national one, I think we would all suggest that the
subnational chapter redefine it's region to become a national chapter,
instead of allowing two separate groups to overlap. Even if it's not a
"problem", it still seems like a needless waste of effort for two
groups to be doing the same things in the same region.

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Nathan]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> 2009/1/20 Ting Chen :
> > 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



-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Erik Moeller]

2009/1/20 Ting Chen :
> 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'?

-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/1/20 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> When you call the non performing chapters malperforming, I am ok with that.
> It is calling a spade a spade.
>
> Calling it insulting that the NYC has fewer responsibilities indicates that
> you have a thin skin. I am the first to acknowledge that the NYC did some
> great things. I love to learn the good things they do so that I can use them
> when appropriate. I do think that it is wrong that there is no USA chapter,
> I also think that the NYC should be part of such a chapter. The one thing
> were you do not get it, is that it is not geographically, it is about
> jurisdictions, tax exemptons et al. This is where national rules make the
> difference.

The individual states are different jurisdictions in many regards,
including corporate law.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Chad]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:

> [snip] The one thing
> were you do not get it, is that it is not geographically, it is about
> jurisdictions, tax exemptons et al. This is where national rules make the
> difference.
>

Could you rephrase this? I've re-read it about 5-6 times
and your wording still isn't parsing for me.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you call the non performing chapters malperforming, I am ok with that.
It is calling a spade a spade.

Calling it insulting that the NYC has fewer responsibilities indicates that
you have a thin skin. I am the first to acknowledge that the NYC did some
great things. I love to learn the good things they do so that I can use them
when appropriate. I do think that it is wrong that there is no USA chapter,
I also think that the NYC should be part of such a chapter. The one thing
were you do not get it, is that it is not geographically, it is about
jurisdictions, tax exemptons et al. This is where national rules make the
difference.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/20 Nathan 

> Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that Wikimedia
> needs an American chapter to fulfill chapter functions nationwide, and that
> the NYC chapter is subpar because it will not?
>
> What you've been asked is to use the accurate name of the chapter type
> rather than one that is inaccurately descriptive. You may believe that
> there
> are deficiencies in the notion of a sub-national chapter that earn it the
> "sub-chapter" description, but I think its rather insulting of you to
> insist
> on using it when its been made clear that its initial use was a
> misunderstanding. By a similar token, should we insist on calling not very
> active or useful national chapters something like "mal-chapters" or "dead
> weight chapters" in regular conversation? I don't think so.
>
> The New York chapter does not appear to be limited in any functional way -
> it can perform all the functions of any normal chapter, it has merely
> determined a specific geographic region in which to pursue those functions.
> Why this makes it any less of a chapter than some other specific
> geographically restricted chapter that happens to coincide with national
> political borders I don't fully understand. Can you expand on that, please?
>
> Of course, the chapter has already been created and recognized and going
> forward it will be the membership of the chapter of New York City that is
> responsible for its role and functioning, not the members of this list.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When the right five friends come together, they do not need their dog to
> > make a successful organisation. Five people are enough to make a bored,
> > five
> > people are enough to raise money. It takes dedication and a lot of
> effort.
> >
> > One essential ingredient is that a chapter represents to some extend the
> > people of projects. Key is the limitation; a chapter has a particular
> > importance that the organisational aspects of the WMF get represented. It
> > is
> > not right that most of the donations are from the USA. This means that a
> > more local chapter effort needs to make a difference in Europe, Asia,
> > Africa, Australia and South America.
> >
> > The reason why a chapter represents to some extend the people of projects
> > exists on several levels and on the other hand it is wrong. Many of the
> > activities have no relation to the projects at all while a chapter
> provides
> > the projects with opportunities that would otherwise not exist. By being
> > organised there is the opportunity to connect to archives, to politics,
> to
> > become the public face for the projects.
> >
> > Ting ruled out the existence of an USA chapter because of the existence
> of
> > the New York chapter. It is equally clear that the WMF organisation does
> > not
> > want to fulfill the role of an USA chapter. When Dan asks me and Anthere
> > not
> > to use the "sub-chapter" word, he is right in that the board names them a
> > chapter, but the issue of the New York chapter having fewer abilities and
> > responsibilities is conveniently swept under the carpet in this way.
> >
> > The prefix sub indicates that it is less then the norm. For me it is
> > obvious
> > that some great five or more people will make the NYC a success. What I
> > want
> > to learn is in what way the national concerns that I expect a functional
> > chapter to take care off will be handled for the USA. This is the crucial
> > bit of thinking, information that is missing. And as long as this is not
> > clear, the NYC is a sub-par to me.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> > 2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth 
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of
> > > > chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a
> > > > Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento
> and
> > > > a few smaller cities come together to make a chapter, would this then
> > > > be "Wikimedia California except Los Angeles City and Monterey
> County"?
> > > > Or should it perhaps also be restricted to not include San Francisco,
> > > > since perhaps there will be a city chapter there, and created the
> > > > "California-exce

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/1/20 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> I doubt that the NYC has the ability to negotiate commercial deals for the
> whole of the USA. Also given that the organisation of the Foundation has
> already made sure that a US citizen can give tax free to the WMF, there is
> no need for the NYC to arrange this, I am sure there are more things that
> are similar.

Why would it want to made deals for the whole of the USA? It's a NYC
chapter, it will make deals for the whole of NYC. The tax thing is a
valid point, but receiving tax deductible donations is only one part
of a chapter's role.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Nathan]

Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that Wikimedia
needs an American chapter to fulfill chapter functions nationwide, and that
the NYC chapter is subpar because it will not?

What you've been asked is to use the accurate name of the chapter type
rather than one that is inaccurately descriptive. You may believe that there
are deficiencies in the notion of a sub-national chapter that earn it the
"sub-chapter" description, but I think its rather insulting of you to insist
on using it when its been made clear that its initial use was a
misunderstanding. By a similar token, should we insist on calling not very
active or useful national chapters something like "mal-chapters" or "dead
weight chapters" in regular conversation? I don't think so.

The New York chapter does not appear to be limited in any functional way -
it can perform all the functions of any normal chapter, it has merely
determined a specific geographic region in which to pursue those functions.
Why this makes it any less of a chapter than some other specific
geographically restricted chapter that happens to coincide with national
political borders I don't fully understand. Can you expand on that, please?

Of course, the chapter has already been created and recognized and going
forward it will be the membership of the chapter of New York City that is
responsible for its role and functioning, not the members of this list.

Nathan

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When the right five friends come together, they do not need their dog to
> make a successful organisation. Five people are enough to make a bored,
> five
> people are enough to raise money. It takes dedication and a lot of effort.
>
> One essential ingredient is that a chapter represents to some extend the
> people of projects. Key is the limitation; a chapter has a particular
> importance that the organisational aspects of the WMF get represented. It
> is
> not right that most of the donations are from the USA. This means that a
> more local chapter effort needs to make a difference in Europe, Asia,
> Africa, Australia and South America.
>
> The reason why a chapter represents to some extend the people of projects
> exists on several levels and on the other hand it is wrong. Many of the
> activities have no relation to the projects at all while a chapter provides
> the projects with opportunities that would otherwise not exist. By being
> organised there is the opportunity to connect to archives, to politics, to
> become the public face for the projects.
>
> Ting ruled out the existence of an USA chapter because of the existence of
> the New York chapter. It is equally clear that the WMF organisation does
> not
> want to fulfill the role of an USA chapter. When Dan asks me and Anthere
> not
> to use the "sub-chapter" word, he is right in that the board names them a
> chapter, but the issue of the New York chapter having fewer abilities and
> responsibilities is conveniently swept under the carpet in this way.
>
> The prefix sub indicates that it is less then the norm. For me it is
> obvious
> that some great five or more people will make the NYC a success. What I
> want
> to learn is in what way the national concerns that I expect a functional
> chapter to take care off will be handled for the USA. This is the crucial
> bit of thinking, information that is missing. And as long as this is not
> clear, the NYC is a sub-par to me.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
>
> 2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth 
>
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels 
> > wrote:
> > > Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of
> > > chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a
> > > Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento and
> > > a few smaller cities come together to make a chapter, would this then
> > > be "Wikimedia California except Los Angeles City and Monterey County"?
> > > Or should it perhaps also be restricted to not include San Francisco,
> > > since perhaps there will be a city chapter there, and created the
> > > "California-except" chapter would make such impossible?
> >
> > 5 Friends and their dog cannot make a chapter. To become a chapter,
> > you need to have critical mass: You need enough people to form a
> > board, you need possible members. You need to be able to raise money,
> > and you need to be able to perform activities. If we have a situation
> > where there are enough Wikimedians in Scramento, Los Angeles, and San
> > Jose to each form chapters, we should consider ourselves to be very
> > lucky. More likely, to build the critical mass necessary to start a
> > new chapter, Wikimedians from all these places may need to work
> > together instead of working apart. The smaller the geographical area
> > is, the fewer potential members you have, the less money you are
> > likely to be able to raise, and the fewer outreach activities you will
> > have available to you.
>

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I doubt that the NYC has the ability to negotiate commercial deals for the
whole of the USA. Also given that the organisation of the Foundation has
already made sure that a US citizen can give tax free to the WMF, there is
no need for the NYC to arrange this, I am sure there are more things that
are similar.
Thanks,
  GerardM

2009/1/20 Thomas Dalton 

> > Ting ruled out the existence of an USA chapter because of the existence
> of
> > the New York chapter. It is equally clear that the WMF organisation does
> not
> > want to fulfill the role of an USA chapter. When Dan asks me and Anthere
> not
> > to use the "sub-chapter" word, he is right in that the board names them a
> > chapter, but the issue of the New York chapter having fewer abilities and
> > responsibilities is conveniently swept under the carpet in this way.
> >
> > The prefix sub indicates that it is less then the norm. For me it is
> obvious
> > that some great five or more people will make the NYC a success. What I
> want
> > to learn is in what way the national concerns that I expect a functional
> > chapter to take care off will be handled for the USA. This is the crucial
> > bit of thinking, information that is missing. And as long as this is not
> > clear, the NYC is a sub-par to me.
>
> What abilities and responsibilities does WMNYC not have that other
> chapters do? And "sub" usually means "a small version that is
> contained with a full one", without a WMUS, there is no chapter for
> WMNYC to be a sub-chapter of. If you want a term to just mean "less
> than a full chapter" try mini-chapter, although the (apparently
> ill-defined) area covered by WMNYC does seem to be as large in terms
> as population and economy as many of our "full" chapters.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> When the right five friends come together, they do not need their dog to
> make a successful organisation. Five people are enough to make a bored, five
> people are enough to raise money. It takes dedication and a lot of effort.

5 people is not critical mass, and I cannot imagine that the chapcom
would approve a potential chapter that has only 5 members. 5 people
can do many wonderful things, but that does not make them a chapter.

> Ting ruled out the existence of an USA chapter because of the existence of
> the New York chapter. It is equally clear that the WMF organisation does not
> want to fulfill the role of an USA chapter. When Dan asks me and Anthere not
> to use the "sub-chapter" word, he is right in that the board names them a
> chapter, but the issue of the New York chapter having fewer abilities and
> responsibilities is conveniently swept under the carpet in this way.

This is all blatantly false. What "abilities" and "responsibilities"
are not available to WMNYC that our other national-level chapters
have? Besides the fact that the WMF itself is based on the USA and
therefore is more able to enter into business agreements with
companies here then in other countries, I see no limitation on this or
any other subnational chapter. Do not assume that this group is at any
disadvantage compared to our other national chapters. In fact, this
chapter is in BETTER shape then some of our national chapters are,
having already sponsored a number of outreach projects, creating
working relationships with other organizations, and soliciting
high-profile donations from museums and other content repositories. We
have national chapters that have not had as much activity in the last
year that WMNYC has had in the last two months.

> The prefix sub indicates that it is less then the norm. For me it is obvious
> that some great five or more people will make the NYC a success. What I want
> to learn is in what way the national concerns that I expect a functional
> chapter to take care off will be handled for the USA. This is the crucial
> bit of thinking, information that is missing. And as long as this is not
> clear, the NYC is a sub-par to me.

WMNYC does not need to impress you, and does not need your approval
Gerard. Their success will be measured in volunteers, donation
dollars, and media contributed to our projects. What "national
concerns" do you expect that they will not be able to address? Our
"sub-national" nomenclature indicates only that they are smaller in
size then the country that contains them, nothing more. If I called
them a "super-municipal chapter" or a "regional chapter", would your
opinion of them improve? If I called our current chapters "sub-global"
or "sub-continental", would that change your opinion of them too?

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Thomas Dalton]

> Ting ruled out the existence of an USA chapter because of the existence of
> the New York chapter. It is equally clear that the WMF organisation does not
> want to fulfill the role of an USA chapter. When Dan asks me and Anthere not
> to use the "sub-chapter" word, he is right in that the board names them a
> chapter, but the issue of the New York chapter having fewer abilities and
> responsibilities is conveniently swept under the carpet in this way.
>
> The prefix sub indicates that it is less then the norm. For me it is obvious
> that some great five or more people will make the NYC a success. What I want
> to learn is in what way the national concerns that I expect a functional
> chapter to take care off will be handled for the USA. This is the crucial
> bit of thinking, information that is missing. And as long as this is not
> clear, the NYC is a sub-par to me.

What abilities and responsibilities does WMNYC not have that other
chapters do? And "sub" usually means "a small version that is
contained with a full one", without a WMUS, there is no chapter for
WMNYC to be a sub-chapter of. If you want a term to just mean "less
than a full chapter" try mini-chapter, although the (apparently
ill-defined) area covered by WMNYC does seem to be as large in terms
as population and economy as many of our "full" chapters.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When the right five friends come together, they do not need their dog to
make a successful organisation. Five people are enough to make a bored, five
people are enough to raise money. It takes dedication and a lot of effort.

One essential ingredient is that a chapter represents to some extend the
people of projects. Key is the limitation; a chapter has a particular
importance that the organisational aspects of the WMF get represented. It is
not right that most of the donations are from the USA. This means that a
more local chapter effort needs to make a difference in Europe, Asia,
Africa, Australia and South America.

The reason why a chapter represents to some extend the people of projects
exists on several levels and on the other hand it is wrong. Many of the
activities have no relation to the projects at all while a chapter provides
the projects with opportunities that would otherwise not exist. By being
organised there is the opportunity to connect to archives, to politics, to
become the public face for the projects.

Ting ruled out the existence of an USA chapter because of the existence of
the New York chapter. It is equally clear that the WMF organisation does not
want to fulfill the role of an USA chapter. When Dan asks me and Anthere not
to use the "sub-chapter" word, he is right in that the board names them a
chapter, but the issue of the New York chapter having fewer abilities and
responsibilities is conveniently swept under the carpet in this way.

The prefix sub indicates that it is less then the norm. For me it is obvious
that some great five or more people will make the NYC a success. What I want
to learn is in what way the national concerns that I expect a functional
chapter to take care off will be handled for the USA. This is the crucial
bit of thinking, information that is missing. And as long as this is not
clear, the NYC is a sub-par to me.
Thanks,
 GerardM



2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth 

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels 
> wrote:
> > Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of
> > chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a
> > Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento and
> > a few smaller cities come together to make a chapter, would this then
> > be "Wikimedia California except Los Angeles City and Monterey County"?
> > Or should it perhaps also be restricted to not include San Francisco,
> > since perhaps there will be a city chapter there, and created the
> > "California-except" chapter would make such impossible?
>
> 5 Friends and their dog cannot make a chapter. To become a chapter,
> you need to have critical mass: You need enough people to form a
> board, you need possible members. You need to be able to raise money,
> and you need to be able to perform activities. If we have a situation
> where there are enough Wikimedians in Scramento, Los Angeles, and San
> Jose to each form chapters, we should consider ourselves to be very
> lucky. More likely, to build the critical mass necessary to start a
> new chapter, Wikimedians from all these places may need to work
> together instead of working apart. The smaller the geographical area
> is, the fewer potential members you have, the less money you are
> likely to be able to raise, and the fewer outreach activities you will
> have available to you.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Geoffrey Plourde]

How about we just close this thread. We do not need to rehash the debate, it is 
a dead horse. 





From: Dan Rosenthal 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:59:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Florence and Gerard,

Could you perhaps not insist on using the non-existent term "sub-chapters"?
If we're going to rehash the ages old discussion on US chapters and "what
does a chapter do" and "Why does the US need this" and other such dead
horses, it'd be nice if we all used the proper terminology. Thanks.

-Dan

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Cary Bass  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Florence Devouard wrote:
> > 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 "
> >
> > ?
> >
> > J
> I fail to see the distinction. A sub-national chapter and a national
> chapter are both still full chapters; as opposed to something which
> would be considered a sub-chapter--which would be completely
> different. I don't see how the Board has to rephrase anything.
>
> Cary
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFJdg2/yQg4JSymDYkRAlxGAKCQLW6F4DF3Bauer217fExL8y+mrgCgriCo
> THpeVBxX/ZUhlIfaAZYjX/c=
> =9WQb
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Dan Rosenthal]

Florence and Gerard,

Could you perhaps not insist on using the non-existent term "sub-chapters"?
If we're going to rehash the ages old discussion on US chapters and "what
does a chapter do" and "Why does the US need this" and other such dead
horses, it'd be nice if we all used the proper terminology. Thanks.

-Dan

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Cary Bass  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Florence Devouard wrote:
> > 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 "
> >
> > ?
> >
> > J
> I fail to see the distinction. A sub-national chapter and a national
> chapter are both still full chapters; as opposed to something which
> would be considered a sub-chapter--which would be completely
> different. I don't see how the Board has to rephrase anything.
>
> Cary
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFJdg2/yQg4JSymDYkRAlxGAKCQLW6F4DF3Bauer217fExL8y+mrgCgriCo
> THpeVBxX/ZUhlIfaAZYjX/c=
> =9WQb
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Birgitte SB]

--- On Tue, 1/20/09, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:


> By the way, this word "chapter" is unfamiliar for
> me, a German. I did not
> hear it before I became a Wikimedian. What does this
> English word mean? Any
> sub division of an organisation, or is it rather associated
> to a city than
> to a country?
> 
> The word "local" in German ("lokal")
> means: related to a city. What does it
> mean when English speaking Wikimedians talk about
> "local chapters"?
> Shouldn't it be "national chapters"? I
> consider Germany as a national, not a
> local entity...
> 
> Ziko
> 

In my experience a chapter means a organization that is associated with a 
larger organization with serperate officers from from the larger organization, 
but the key feature is that it manages it's own memebership.  The larger 
organization is usualy more closely tied to chapters than in the case of WMF.  
But chapters are generally run independently and the larger organization which 
enforces it's requirements or morals with threats to cut ties with the chapter 
rather than any direct managment of chapter activities.  Normally chapters are 
put on probation and given a chance to correct things before being cut off 
completely.  Chapters are most recognizable to me in social soiceties and 
advocay groups.  But I think the it would normal for unions and charity 
organizations use them too.  de.WP has an article on Freemasonary,  the 
"lodges" within that are should very similar to use of chapters of a greek 
letter society as that was all modeled on freemasonary.  
 I don't if there is a general concept in German for the way "lodge" is used in 
Freemasaonary, but in English "chapter" applies to this concept.

Birgitte SB


  


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Cary Bass]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Florence Devouard wrote:
> 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 "
>
> ?
>
> J
I fail to see the distinction. A sub-national chapter and a national
chapter are both still full chapters; as opposed to something which
would be considered a sub-chapter--which would be completely
different. I don't see how the Board has to rephrase anything.

Cary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJdg2/yQg4JSymDYkRAlxGAKCQLW6F4DF3Bauer217fExL8y+mrgCgriCo
THpeVBxX/ZUhlIfaAZYjX/c=
=9WQb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Jimmy Wales]

Florence Devouard wrote:
> Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ?

There are no sub-chapters.  The proper term is "sub-national chapters". 
  And they are chapters as much as any other chapter.

--Jimbo



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Thomas Dalton]

> In other words, the chapters are not, in general, agents delegated to
> do business on behalf of the Foundation. Instead, they are independent
> organizations who do outreach and education in service of the projects
> and the larger Wikimedia movement.

Well put, that's pretty much the way I see it. I consider chapters as
part of the Wikimedia movement, not part of the Wikimedia Foundation
(which they clearly aren't, from a legal perspective). Both work to
further the projects, but they do so separately (cooperating where
appropriate, of course).

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Thomas Dalton]

> By the way, this word "chapter" is unfamiliar for me, a German. I did not
> hear it before I became a Wikimedian. What does this English word mean? Any
> sub division of an organisation, or is it rather associated to a city than
> to a country?

A chapter is a sub-division of an organisation. I'm not sure it's
really the best word to describe our "chapters", since they are very
much independent. They are more local affiliates than chapters.

> The word "local" in German ("lokal") means: related to a city. What does it
> mean when English speaking Wikimedians talk about "local chapters"?
> Shouldn't it be "national chapters"? I consider Germany as a national, not a
> local entity...

"Local" in English just means related to a certain geographical area,
the definition does not specify the size of that area. It is usually
clear from context - it can refer to anything from a village to the
Local Group, the collection of galaxies that the Milky Way is part of.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Nathan  wrote:
> Suppose the Hong Kong chapter had initially declared itself the Chinese
> chapter - would that forever preclude the creation of other, separate
> chapters within the geographical territory of China? That presents a
> first-past-the-post incentive, and might encourage prospective chapters to
> describe themselves in as broad a way as possible.

This is a good question, but maybe the better one is "is there any
incentive for a chapter to be defined over a larger geographical area
as opposed to a smaller one?" Would WMNYC have any kinds of benefits
if it had declared itself to be WMUS instead? I think the answer is
"no". In this case, WMNYC is a community-oriented chapter that defines
itself primarily through it's outreach activites. Even if it accepted
members from California, those members wouldn't be able to participate
in any of WMNYCs activities.

Distance can create a huge barrier to entry. Being larger may mean you
can accept more applications, but not all of those members will be
able to fully-participate. I'm in Philadelphia, and even though I'm
not too far away I still find that I can't participate in many
activities because of the distance. This may mean, in the future, that
I need to pursue a different venue for participation, either through
the creation of a local section of the larger chapter, or splitting
away and forming a new chapter entirely (and the mechanisms for that
course of action are as yet unclear, if they are even possible).

I would say that there is no benefit in defining an area larger then
the chapter can reasonably support. If you cannot accept, manage, and
involve members from your entire geographical area in a reasonable
way, then your stated area is not an accurate depiction of your region
of influence. Chapters that claim to support a larger area then they
can reasonably handle create a detrimental situation: Potential
members in outlying areas are disenfranchised and have no recourse to
form their own separate chapter if they need to. Chapters should only
form on the national-level if they have nation-wide volunteer
interest, activity, and support.

We should be hesitant to accept national chapters who cannot support
membership from their entire area, or national chapters composed
entirely of volunteers from a small population center. In many cases,
subnational chapters should be the preferred way of organizing because
it's a more realistic use of volunteer capabilities.

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The city of Moscow would be refused a chapter.
Thanks,
 GerardM

2009/1/20 Nathan 

> Ziko,
>
> The United States previously had no chapter, no organization in which
> members of the community could gain membership and organize events,
> activities and pursuits independent from the legal organization of
> Wikimedia.
>
> The state of New York has 20 million people. What country in Europe or
> anywhere else of 20 million people would be refused a chapter? On what
> basis
> should such a chapter be denied? That people oppose the creation of a New
> York chapter, and thus limiting American community members in a way
> non-American community members are not limited, on the basis that it
> somehow
> creates an imbalance... I find it hard to credit. Nothing in a New York
> chapter should be interpreted as reducing the power over Wikimedia of
> Europeans. It should be noted that there are a number of non-American
> members of the Board, and neither the director nor the deputy director of
> the organization is American.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Ziko van Dijk  >wrote:
>
> > First, I do not want to diminish the happiness of the New Yorkers having
> a
> > chapter making their activities easier. But I do think very negative
> about
> > this step of the Board, both for emotional and practical reasons.
> >
> > Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. makes
> > France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York. It makes the Wikimedia
> > Foundation look an American organization that has regional chapters in
> the
> > 50 states, and also has some afiliates in the "colonies" (France, Germany
> > etc.). As Gerard has said, some countries are more equal than others.
> >
> > Practical: When I once talked with Arne Klempert about the possibility of
> > an
> > Esperanto or Latin or Alemannic chapter, he explained to me that
> Wikimedia
> > accepts only chapters within international boundaries, one chapter per
> > country. There is a German, Austrian, and a Swiss chapter, not a German
> > language or a French language chapter. If this would not be so, if we
> would
> > have chapters based on something else, we would get into a lot of
> trouble.
> > And he easily convinced me, because I know similar problems from other
> > organizations.
> >
> > Allowing sub national chapters (or super national chapters) is giving
> wrong
> > ideas to a lot of people. If we did not deny a chapter to the New
> Yorkers,
> > how can we deny it to other regions, minorities etc.? (Or prevent that
> > personal conflicts are realized on the level of regions?)
> >
> > Some more questions:
> > * NYC chapter does not clearly define its borders, talks about a region
> > where it wants to be active. What if other Wikimedians wants to create a
> > chapter in a city that is now in the New York chapter region? When a
> North
> > Eastern US Chapter knocks on the door of WMF, will the NYC chapter be
> happy
> > about and volontarily dissolve?
> >
> > * Ethnically divided countries: Belgium, for example: What if one group
> of
> > Belgian Wikimedians wants to create a Belgian chapter, but others want
> > three
> > regional chapters (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia)?
> >
> > * Minorities without region: What if there is an Estonian chapter, but
> > Russian speaking people there demand a chapter of their own?
> >
> > * When the chapters are going to work together more than now, and are
> going
> > to elect WMF board members: Will one chapter have one vote? Will there be
> > 50
> > US chapters with 50 votes, and one French chapter with one vote?
> >
> > * Isn't it much easier for WMF to relate to a limited number of national
> > chapters than with a potentially unlimited number of national, sub
> > national,
> > or super national chapters?
> >
> > It might have been better to consider the NYC chapter indeed as a "sub
> > chapter", a stand-in until there will be an US chapter.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> >
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please understand what a chapter could do, should do when you take the
projects out of the equation for a moment. The WMF organisation, and the
chapters are part of that, ENABLE the projects. Border lines are typically
where jurisdictions start and end. If that does not make sense to you, we
are talking about completely different things. Do however consider if there
is a need for what I am talking about !!!
Thanks,
  GerardM

2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth 

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > At some stage you get used to it. Some people call the "language
> committee"
> > the "language sub-committee". This while the committee it should be a sub
> > off does not even exist any more.
> >
> > While I do think that the New York sub chapter will do great things and
> will
> > even do better then some chapters, it does not represent a country. It
> will
> > not negotiate national commercial deals ... or will it ?
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
>
> 1) Not a "sub chapter". Please don't use that term anymore because it
> is incorrect and misleading.
> 2) What "national commercial deals"?
> 3) It does not represent a "country". It also doesn't represent a
> language or a religion or a skin color. These are not important to us.
> It does represent a group of active Wikimedians, and this IS important
> to us.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Nathan]

Andrew's comment brings up a separate, but serious, issue.

Suppose the Hong Kong chapter had initially declared itself the Chinese
chapter - would that forever preclude the creation of other, separate
chapters within the geographical territory of China? That presents a
first-past-the-post incentive, and might encourage prospective chapters to
describe themselves in as broad a way as possible.

I don't think that the New York chapter ought to have declared itself a
United States chapter, even if it had declared a broad scope and intent, and
I don't think that if it had done that future chapters of a smaller area
should be barred. The geographic limitations on chapters should be
re-evaluated, perhaps with an eye towards requiring the selection of a
single jurisdiction for each chapter (in the US, perhaps
federal/state/local) and only one chapter per jurisdiction.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Mike Godwin]

Ting writes:

> yes, this is also very unconvenient for the foundation and this is the
> reason why the board want to talk to the chapter about the growth and
> maturity of the chapters. If we can help, we would like to help. We  
> want
> that all chapters can do agreements and the foundations don't need  
> to do
> them in these areas. We also hope that the chapters can talk with the
> museums and archives and organize academies and so on. We would like  
> to
> see the chapters more active.

I think Ting's comment here underscores a possible disconnect between  
his comments and Florence's. Florence is correct that the chapters  
thus far have had only very limited autonomy to develop business  
arrangements without Foundation approval. But Ting is correct (as I  
understand it) that the Foundation believes the chapters are well- 
positioned to do things like develop relationships with museums and  
other repositories of information, as well as organizing academies and  
similar functions.

In other words, the chapters are not, in general, agents delegated to  
do business on behalf of the Foundation. Instead, they are independent  
organizations who do outreach and education in service of the projects  
and the larger Wikimedia movement.

Of course, my own understanding of all this is probably as imperfect  
and evolving as anyone else's.


--Mike



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Ziko van Dijk]

Thank you folks for the explanations, some things are getting clearer to me.

So "NCY chapter" is a bad naming, I see. I believed that it was not defined
geographically well, because I saw the map saying "

Approximate region of operations of Wikimedia New York
City,
centered on the New York metropolitan
area
.

But all Wikimedians across the Northeast US who find it convenient to
participate in meetings in New York City are most welcome!"

URL:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_New_York_City_region.PNG?uselang=de


I learned now that chapters should not overlap. But in case of dispute, what
principle will be used? "First comes first" or "The majority of Wikimedians
concerned decide" or "We prefer large regions to small regions"? Or "the
Foundation decides from time to time, based on several principles, figuring
out what might be suitable in this specific case?" I foresee a lot of
trouble because of this acceptance of a sub national chapter.

By the way, this word "chapter" is unfamiliar for me, a German. I did not
hear it before I became a Wikimedian. What does this English word mean? Any
sub division of an organisation, or is it rather associated to a city than
to a country?

The word "local" in German ("lokal") means: related to a city. What does it
mean when English speaking Wikimedians talk about "local chapters"?
Shouldn't it be "national chapters"? I consider Germany as a national, not a
local entity...

Ziko














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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Nikola Smolenski]

Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> 3) It does not represent a "country". It also doesn't represent a
> language or a religion or a skin color. These are not important to us.
> It does represent a group of active Wikimedians, and this IS important
> to us.

There is one more thing that is important however, and this is what laws 
does the chapter operate under. These are different from country to 
country, from US state to US state, and even on a local level. In 
Serbia, some municipalities offer donations to NGOs stationed in them, 
and we were considering moving WMRS seat to a richer municipality. 
Obviously, it would be even better if we could have one subchapter 
stationed in every municipality ;)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Andre Engels  wrote:
> That doesn't change my point, it's just a matter of scale... Suppose
> there's a chapter in Georgia, and one for Kentucky and Tennessee. Then
> some people come around and start on a chapter for the southeast.
> That's going to be a quite strange assortment of states they're going
> to represent.

So it's a problem if a chapters geographical area is "strange"? Or
maybe the biggest concern is that a chapter may be named in such a way
that's confusing to non-members? If these are our biggest problems
concerning the hypothetical development of subnational chapters, then
I am relieved. If we are lucky enough to have 4 active chapters in the
south east region of the USA, then this is quite a good problem to
have!

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Nathan]

Ziko,

The United States previously had no chapter, no organization in which
members of the community could gain membership and organize events,
activities and pursuits independent from the legal organization of
Wikimedia.

The state of New York has 20 million people. What country in Europe or
anywhere else of 20 million people would be refused a chapter? On what basis
should such a chapter be denied? That people oppose the creation of a New
York chapter, and thus limiting American community members in a way
non-American community members are not limited, on the basis that it somehow
creates an imbalance... I find it hard to credit. Nothing in a New York
chapter should be interpreted as reducing the power over Wikimedia of
Europeans. It should be noted that there are a number of non-American
members of the Board, and neither the director nor the deputy director of
the organization is American.

Nathan

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:

> First, I do not want to diminish the happiness of the New Yorkers having a
> chapter making their activities easier. But I do think very negative about
> this step of the Board, both for emotional and practical reasons.
>
> Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. makes
> France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York. It makes the Wikimedia
> Foundation look an American organization that has regional chapters in the
> 50 states, and also has some afiliates in the "colonies" (France, Germany
> etc.). As Gerard has said, some countries are more equal than others.
>
> Practical: When I once talked with Arne Klempert about the possibility of
> an
> Esperanto or Latin or Alemannic chapter, he explained to me that Wikimedia
> accepts only chapters within international boundaries, one chapter per
> country. There is a German, Austrian, and a Swiss chapter, not a German
> language or a French language chapter. If this would not be so, if we would
> have chapters based on something else, we would get into a lot of trouble.
> And he easily convinced me, because I know similar problems from other
> organizations.
>
> Allowing sub national chapters (or super national chapters) is giving wrong
> ideas to a lot of people. If we did not deny a chapter to the New Yorkers,
> how can we deny it to other regions, minorities etc.? (Or prevent that
> personal conflicts are realized on the level of regions?)
>
> Some more questions:
> * NYC chapter does not clearly define its borders, talks about a region
> where it wants to be active. What if other Wikimedians wants to create a
> chapter in a city that is now in the New York chapter region? When a North
> Eastern US Chapter knocks on the door of WMF, will the NYC chapter be happy
> about and volontarily dissolve?
>
> * Ethnically divided countries: Belgium, for example: What if one group of
> Belgian Wikimedians wants to create a Belgian chapter, but others want
> three
> regional chapters (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia)?
>
> * Minorities without region: What if there is an Estonian chapter, but
> Russian speaking people there demand a chapter of their own?
>
> * When the chapters are going to work together more than now, and are going
> to elect WMF board members: Will one chapter have one vote? Will there be
> 50
> US chapters with 50 votes, and one French chapter with one vote?
>
> * Isn't it much easier for WMF to relate to a limited number of national
> chapters than with a potentially unlimited number of national, sub
> national,
> or super national chapters?
>
> It might have been better to consider the NYC chapter indeed as a "sub
> chapter", a stand-in until there will be an US chapter.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Ziko
>
>
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Mike Godwin]

Florence writes:

>> The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area
>> negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and
>> names.
>
> Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation.
> The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement.
> Afaik, only one chapter has.
> When propositions are received, either we forward them to the  
> Foundation
> and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we
> can not negociate.

After ongoing review of the chapter agreements, both as templates and  
as they have been specifically implemented, I believe Florence's  
characterization here is fundamentally correct. In general, the  
chapter agreements as they are implemented nowadays do not delegate to  
the chapters the right to negotiate business propositions regarding  
wikimedia project logos. I should add that I have not reviewed every  
single chapter agreement (notably, I haven't reviewed the German  
chapter agreement), and that in the course of trying to regularize  
chapter agreements we have discovered that our records of chapter  
agreements are incomplete, or at least scattered. (This is not a  
result of the relocation to San Francisco -- I think the records were  
disorganized or complete prior to the move.)

Among my goals for this calendar year are (a) improving record-keeping  
of the specific chapter agreements, (b) harmonizing, to the extent  
possible, the chapter agreements so that there is a fairly standard  
understanding of what chapters may do or are likely to do as a  
function of their agreement with WMF, (c) improving chapter agreements  
in terms of trademark management and brand identification. We have  
asked the Stanford Law School Organizations and Transactions Clinic to  
work with us on reviewing and revising our standard chapters agreement  
this year, and if our previous experience with them is any guide, we  
expect this collaboration to be fruitful.

On another topic, for what it's worth, I find it clearer to think of  
"subnational chapters" rather than "subchapters."


--Mike




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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> At some stage you get used to it. Some people call the "language committee"
> the "language sub-committee". This while the committee it should be a sub
> off does not even exist any more.
>
> While I do think that the New York sub chapter will do great things and will
> even do better then some chapters, it does not represent a country. It will
> not negotiate national commercial deals ... or will it ?
> Thanks,
> GerardM

1) Not a "sub chapter". Please don't use that term anymore because it
is incorrect and misleading.
2) What "national commercial deals"?
3) It does not represent a "country". It also doesn't represent a
language or a religion or a skin color. These are not important to us.
It does represent a group of active Wikimedians, and this IS important
to us.

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Andrew Whitworth  wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels  wrote:
>> Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of
>> chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a
>> Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento and
>> a few smaller cities come together to make a chapter, would this then
>> be "Wikimedia California except Los Angeles City and Monterey County"?
>> Or should it perhaps also be restricted to not include San Francisco,
>> since perhaps there will be a city chapter there, and created the
>> "California-except" chapter would make such impossible?
>
> 5 Friends and their dog cannot make a chapter. To become a chapter,
> you need to have critical mass: You need enough people to form a
> board, you need possible members. You need to be able to raise money,
> and you need to be able to perform activities. If we have a situation
> where there are enough Wikimedians in Scramento, Los Angeles, and San
> Jose to each form chapters, we should consider ourselves to be very
> lucky. More likely, to build the critical mass necessary to start a
> new chapter, Wikimedians from all these places may need to work
> together instead of working apart. The smaller the geographical area
> is, the fewer potential members you have, the less money you are
> likely to be able to raise, and the fewer outreach activities you will
> have available to you.

That doesn't change my point, it's just a matter of scale... Suppose
there's a chapter in Georgia, and one for Kentucky and Tennessee. Then
some people come around and start on a chapter for the southeast.
That's going to be a quite strange assortment of states they're going
to represent.


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
At some stage you get used to it. Some people call the "language committee"
the "language sub-committee". This while the committee it should be a sub
off does not even exist any more.

While I do think that the New York sub chapter will do great things and will
even do better then some chapters, it does not represent a country. It will
not negotiate national commercial deals ... or will it ?
Thanks,
 GerardM

2009/1/20 Nathan 

> Can we stop using the words "sub-chapter"? It implies something that
> doesn't
> exist - there are sub-national chapters, which is descriptive of their
> geographic coverage and nothing else. Sub-chapter seems to suggest some
> grouping less than a full chapter, or subordinate to a chapter, and that
> isn't the case. It appears that this has caused some confusion.
>
> Nathan
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Nathan]

Can we stop using the words "sub-chapter"? It implies something that doesn't
exist - there are sub-national chapters, which is descriptive of their
geographic coverage and nothing else. Sub-chapter seems to suggest some
grouping less than a full chapter, or subordinate to a chapter, and that
isn't the case. It appears that this has caused some confusion.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> It does seem odd to me that there is a New York City chapter rather
> than a New York chapter. As I understand it, companies in the US are
> registered at state level. State boundaries are far more clearly
> defined (yes, I'm sure there is a legal definition of NYC, but it
> doesn't sound like the chapter are using it). The state of New York
> isn't overly large compared with the area under the remit of other
> existing chapters. So why doesn't this chapter represent the whole of
> the state? I really can't see any reason for it not to.

Consider it a case of bad naming: The bylaws say that the chapter
covers the entire state (and several neighboring states). However, the
working name of the group is "New York City" because that's where
their organizational focus is located. I personally live in
Philadelphia and plan to become a member of WMNYC soon.

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
>> New York City is a city, and France or Germany are nations. In the
>> geopolitical sense, the two are very different. However, in terms of
>> chapters the geopolitical boundaries are meaningless. Chapters are
>> defined and measured by their levels of participation. We don't say
>> that a nation must always be "better" then a city, we say that one
>> wikimedian is equal to one wikimedian. A Wikimedian in WMNYC who pays
>> dues and participates is equal to a Wikimedian in Wikimedia France who
>> pays dues and participates. To say that one group of our volunteers
>> should be discounted because they represent a smaller area is not a
>> good thing.
>
> So would you suggest that votes at chapter meetings, etc., be weighted
> by membership? That gets rather complicated when you consider that
> different chapters function in different ways (different membership
> fees, different responsibilities of members, different classes of
> membership, etc). If you have one vote per chapter then it becomes
> completely arbitrary.

My only suggestion is that the situation is very complicated, and we
cannot always say that national chapters must be more important then
sub-national chapters. It's entirely conceivable that WMNYC will have
more active members then some national chapters do, so why should it
be counted less? Some chapters might be very large and successful, so
maybe they should be weighted more. There is no way to make the system
completely fair, for reasons you suggest and for others entirely.
However, that doesn't mean we should draw a line in the sand and say
"Wikimedians on this side of the line are more important then
Wikimedians on the other side are". I would hate to see Wikimedia
Chapters used as a vehicle to disenfranchise certain groups when it
comes to global educational initiatives.

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels  wrote:
> Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of
> chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a
> Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento and
> a few smaller cities come together to make a chapter, would this then
> be "Wikimedia California except Los Angeles City and Monterey County"?
> Or should it perhaps also be restricted to not include San Francisco,
> since perhaps there will be a city chapter there, and created the
> "California-except" chapter would make such impossible?

5 Friends and their dog cannot make a chapter. To become a chapter,
you need to have critical mass: You need enough people to form a
board, you need possible members. You need to be able to raise money,
and you need to be able to perform activities. If we have a situation
where there are enough Wikimedians in Scramento, Los Angeles, and San
Jose to each form chapters, we should consider ourselves to be very
lucky. More likely, to build the critical mass necessary to start a
new chapter, Wikimedians from all these places may need to work
together instead of working apart. The smaller the geographical area
is, the fewer potential members you have, the less money you are
likely to be able to raise, and the fewer outreach activities you will
have available to you.

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/1/20 Andre Engels :
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Andrew Whitworth  
> wrote:
>
>> Two answers to this question:
>> 1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the
>> moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap. However, it
>> may be possible in the future if both groups agree to share space, but
>> we haven't had an issue like that and I can't imagine the benefit of
>> doing it that way.
>
> Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of
> chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a
> Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento and
> a few smaller cities come together to make a chapter, would this then
> be "Wikimedia California except Los Angeles City and Monterey County"?
> Or should it perhaps also be restricted to not include San Francisco,
> since perhaps there will be a city chapter there, and created the
> "California-except" chapter would make such impossible?

It does seem odd to me that there is a New York City chapter rather
than a New York chapter. As I understand it, companies in the US are
registered at state level. State boundaries are far more clearly
defined (yes, I'm sure there is a legal definition of NYC, but it
doesn't sound like the chapter are using it). The state of New York
isn't overly large compared with the area under the remit of other
existing chapters. So why doesn't this chapter represent the whole of
the state? I really can't see any reason for it not to.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Thomas Dalton]

> New York City is a city, and France or Germany are nations. In the
> geopolitical sense, the two are very different. However, in terms of
> chapters the geopolitical boundaries are meaningless. Chapters are
> defined and measured by their levels of participation. We don't say
> that a nation must always be "better" then a city, we say that one
> wikimedian is equal to one wikimedian. A Wikimedian in WMNYC who pays
> dues and participates is equal to a Wikimedian in Wikimedia France who
> pays dues and participates. To say that one group of our volunteers
> should be discounted because they represent a smaller area is not a
> good thing.

So would you suggest that votes at chapter meetings, etc., be weighted
by membership? That gets rather complicated when you consider that
different chapters function in different ways (different membership
fees, different responsibilities of members, different classes of
membership, etc). If you have one vote per chapter then it becomes
completely arbitrary.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Andrew Whitworth  wrote:

> Two answers to this question:
> 1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the
> moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap. However, it
> may be possible in the future if both groups agree to share space, but
> we haven't had an issue like that and I can't imagine the benefit of
> doing it that way.

Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of
chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a
Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento and
a few smaller cities come together to make a chapter, would this then
be "Wikimedia California except Los Angeles City and Monterey County"?
Or should it perhaps also be restricted to not include San Francisco,
since perhaps there will be a city chapter there, and created the
"California-except" chapter would make such impossible?


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. makes
> France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York. It makes the Wikimedia
> Foundation look an American organization that has regional chapters in the
> 50 states, and also has some afiliates in the "colonies" (France, Germany
> etc.). As Gerard has said, some countries are more equal than others.

New York City is a city, and France or Germany are nations. In the
geopolitical sense, the two are very different. However, in terms of
chapters the geopolitical boundaries are meaningless. Chapters are
defined and measured by their levels of participation. We don't say
that a nation must always be "better" then a city, we say that one
wikimedian is equal to one wikimedian. A Wikimedian in WMNYC who pays
dues and participates is equal to a Wikimedian in Wikimedia France who
pays dues and participates. To say that one group of our volunteers
should be discounted because they represent a smaller area is not a
good thing.

Subnational chapters allow wikimedians to organize in ways that are
suitable for them, and allow them to participate equally. Chapters are
chapters, Wikimedians are Wikimedians, and we should not be drawing
lines between them, or ranking their relative "importance".

> Practical: When I once talked with Arne Klempert about the possibility of an
> Esperanto or Latin or Alemannic chapter, he explained to me that Wikimedia
> accepts only chapters within international boundaries, one chapter per
> country. There is a German, Austrian, and a Swiss chapter, not a German
> language or a French language chapter. If this would not be so, if we would
> have chapters based on something else, we would get into a lot of trouble.
> And he easily convinced me, because I know similar problems from other
> organizations.

This is a slightly different issue. Subnational chapters are entirely
contained in a single country and therefore have a unified legal
system to operate under. Transnational chapters do not, and can run
into problems from the simple operation of transporting donated money
from a member to headquarters, or bringing members to meetings.  I
don't want to say that a trans-national chapter should not be a
possibility if it was the correct course to take, but it certainly is
a very different situation from a subnational chapter.

> Allowing sub national chapters (or super national chapters) is giving wrong
> ideas to a lot of people. If we did not deny a chapter to the New Yorkers,
> how can we deny it to other regions, minorities etc.? (Or prevent that
> personal conflicts are realized on the level of regions?)

We shouldn't deny a chapter to any group who is willing to do the
organizational work and who are interested in participating in
Wikimedia. At the moment the only rules we have are:

1) Chapters cannot overlap
2) Chapters should not cross national boundaries
3) Chapters must have a well-defined geographical area

Any group who satisfies these basic requirements, is active, and is
willing to do the organizational work that's required should be
allowed to form a chapter. The goal of having chapters in the first
place is to help Wikimedians be empowered and get involved. We do not
use chapters as a tool to elevate some Wikimedians and hold back
others.

> Some more questions:
> * NYC chapter does not clearly define its borders, talks about a region
> where it wants to be active. What if other Wikimedians wants to create a
> chapter in a city that is now in the New York chapter region? When a North
> Eastern US Chapter knocks on the door of WMF, will the NYC chapter be happy
> about and volontarily dissolve?

NYC does clearly define it's borders: New York State, New Jersey,
Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. These are written in it's bylaws.

We do not allow overlapping chapters, so if a group of Wikimedians in
Philadelphia wanted to create a separate chapter right now they would
not be allowed to. By that same token, Wikimedians in Sicily would not
be allowed to create a separate chapter from Wikimedia Italia.

I'm also not sure I understand the last part of the question, what do
you mean by "knocks on the door of the WMF..."?

> * Ethnically divided countries: Belgium, for example: What if one group of
> Belgian Wikimedians wants to create a Belgian chapter, but others want three
> regional chapters (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia)?

This is a very common issue, and it's up to the Wikimedians in Belgium
to decide the best way for them to organize. We should not be
dictating to them who they must work with, who they must interact
with, or where they must participate. Belgians can decide for
themselves how to proceed. If there is not enough support to create a
national chapter, then one will not be created in Belgium.

> * Minorities without region: What if there is an Estonian chapter, but
> Russian speaking people there demand a chapter of their own?

There is no demanding, 

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Florence Devouard]

Delphine Ménard wrote:
> [OT]
> 
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 13:34, Sebastian Moleski  wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard  
>> wrote:
>>> It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :)
>> I'm not getting the reference. Can you help?
> 
> For Germans, power distance [1] [2] is small, which means, for
> example, that it's easy for the employees to go to their boss and talk
> about things and make decisions on their own, it makes delegation
> easier. For the French, power distance is big, which means hierarchy
> is much stronger, and chain of command is more important, which makes
> delegation harder.
> 
> Of course, there are millions of other factors coming into play at any
> given time. But I thought it was interesting to see yours and
> Florence's reaction on this.
> 
> Delphine
> 
> [1] http://www.geert-hofstede.com/ (scroll down the page)
> [2] and for a little self promotion:
> http://blog.notanendive.org/post/2008/07/25/Distance-to-power-somewhere-in-the-middle


One still wonders how the French Wikipedia could ever develop...

Ant


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Ting Chen]

Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> First, I do not want to diminish the happiness of the New Yorkers having a
> chapter making their activities easier. But I do think very negative about
> this step of the Board, both for emotional and practical reasons.
>
> Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. makes
> France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York. It makes the Wikimedia
> Foundation look an American organization that has regional chapters in the
> 50 states, and also has some afiliates in the "colonies" (France, Germany
> etc.). As Gerard has said, some countries are more equal than others.
>
> Practical: When I once talked with Arne Klempert about the possibility of an
> Esperanto or Latin or Alemannic chapter, he explained to me that Wikimedia
> accepts only chapters within international boundaries, one chapter per
> country. There is a German, Austrian, and a Swiss chapter, not a German
> language or a French language chapter. If this would not be so, if we would
> have chapters based on something else, we would get into a lot of trouble.
> And he easily convinced me, because I know similar problems from other
> organizations.
>
> Allowing sub national chapters (or super national chapters) is giving wrong
> ideas to a lot of people. If we did not deny a chapter to the New Yorkers,
> how can we deny it to other regions, minorities etc.? (Or prevent that
> personal conflicts are realized on the level of regions?)
>
> Some more questions:
> * NYC chapter does not clearly define its borders, talks about a region
> where it wants to be active. What if other Wikimedians wants to create a
> chapter in a city that is now in the New York chapter region? When a North
> Eastern US Chapter knocks on the door of WMF, will the NYC chapter be happy
> about and volontarily dissolve?
>
> * Ethnically divided countries: Belgium, for example: What if one group of
> Belgian Wikimedians wants to create a Belgian chapter, but others want three
> regional chapters (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia)?
>
> * Minorities without region: What if there is an Estonian chapter, but
> Russian speaking people there demand a chapter of their own?
>
> * When the chapters are going to work together more than now, and are going
> to elect WMF board members: Will one chapter have one vote? Will there be 50
> US chapters with 50 votes, and one French chapter with one vote?
>
> * Isn't it much easier for WMF to relate to a limited number of national
> chapters than with a potentially unlimited number of national, sub national,
> or super national chapters?
>
> It might have been better to consider the NYC chapter indeed as a "sub
> chapter", a stand-in until there will be an US chapter.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Ziko
>
>
>
> 2009/1/19 Michael Snow 
>
>   
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>> 
>
>   
Hello Ziko,

I think this is the wrong way to consider the chapters. The first 
sub-national chapter that we have is indeed Hongkong. Hongkong is 
undisputed a part of China, so it is a sub-national chapter and it is in 
no way an american sub-national chapter. And no, the foundation 
definitively don't want to be an american chapter. Thing is more 
praktical: If the new yorker wikimedians have the ability to organize 
themselves but there's no ability to organize an allamerican chapter, 
why should we lay stones on their way and prevent them doing so. And as 
in my reply to Gerard, if the community want, I really don't see problem 
why the netherland chapter should or could not also incoporate part of 
Belgium. If it can do good for the

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Thomas Dalton]

> The Board (in a French association) has been mandated by the General
> Assembly to make the decisions concerning the association. As such, it
> is totally in the realm of its power to delegate someone to
> "represent" the association at a meeting and even "make decisions" on
> its behalf. The only thing being, if the person makes a decision that
> the board is not ready to support, then the board has to live with it
> and be accountable in the next General Assembly.
>
> As I pointed out, I think it's more of a cultural issue than a legal one. :)

If it helps, this is the situation in the UK (NB: IANAL, but I have
spent far too much time reading the relevant legislation and various
bits of official advice regarding it):

Since the UK chapter is a charity, charity law, rather than just
company law, applies. It's far more strict on this kind of thing
(companies can do pretty much whatever they like). The board can
certainly send a representative with instructions to present the
opinions already decided on by the board to the meeting and vote
accordingly, there could probably be some leeway to negotiate on
matters that don't affect the principles of a decision, but that's
about it. There is no way an individual board member could make
binding agreements on behalf of the charity, even on matters already
decided by the board. Two board members, on the other hand, have far
more power - the board can grant wide ranging powers (I believe pretty
much all the powers of the board if they want) to a committee of two
board members, and those two board members can even sign contracts and
deeds and assurances and various other things I've never been able to
work out the difference between on behalf of the board.

So, my advice to whoever is organising this meeting: If you want to
make life easy on the UK chapter and have a productive meeting, invite
at least two representatives from each country. (I suppose you could
invite one from most countries and 2 from the UK if you really wanted
to, but I wouldn't recommend it!)

Also, from a purely personal perspective, it's far nicer for the reps
to have a friend by their side, especially for those that have limited
English language skills since other people from their chapter may well
be the only people they can converse with easily. And, having the
responsibility for representing your chapter resting solely on your
shoulders could be extremely stressful.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth :
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
>> 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,
>
> Two answers to this question:
> 1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the
> moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap. However, it
> may be possible in the future if both groups agree to share space, but
> we haven't had an issue like that and I can't imagine the benefit of
> doing it that way.
> 2) It is possible that as participation grows, maybe WMNYC could grow
> to become WMUSA over time. Maybe there are several sub-national
> chapters that combine together to form a single national chapter, or
> maybe the one chapter grows slowly to encompass more area. These are
> just speculative possibilities, but it's worth noting that
> sub-national chapters have these kinds of options.

3) The various sub-national USA chapters could form a union/federation
of chapters. They remain independent chapters, but have a structure in
place to enable them to work together effectively.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Ziko van Dijk]

First, I do not want to diminish the happiness of the New Yorkers having a
chapter making their activities easier. But I do think very negative about
this step of the Board, both for emotional and practical reasons.

Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. makes
France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York. It makes the Wikimedia
Foundation look an American organization that has regional chapters in the
50 states, and also has some afiliates in the "colonies" (France, Germany
etc.). As Gerard has said, some countries are more equal than others.

Practical: When I once talked with Arne Klempert about the possibility of an
Esperanto or Latin or Alemannic chapter, he explained to me that Wikimedia
accepts only chapters within international boundaries, one chapter per
country. There is a German, Austrian, and a Swiss chapter, not a German
language or a French language chapter. If this would not be so, if we would
have chapters based on something else, we would get into a lot of trouble.
And he easily convinced me, because I know similar problems from other
organizations.

Allowing sub national chapters (or super national chapters) is giving wrong
ideas to a lot of people. If we did not deny a chapter to the New Yorkers,
how can we deny it to other regions, minorities etc.? (Or prevent that
personal conflicts are realized on the level of regions?)

Some more questions:
* NYC chapter does not clearly define its borders, talks about a region
where it wants to be active. What if other Wikimedians wants to create a
chapter in a city that is now in the New York chapter region? When a North
Eastern US Chapter knocks on the door of WMF, will the NYC chapter be happy
about and volontarily dissolve?

* Ethnically divided countries: Belgium, for example: What if one group of
Belgian Wikimedians wants to create a Belgian chapter, but others want three
regional chapters (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia)?

* Minorities without region: What if there is an Estonian chapter, but
Russian speaking people there demand a chapter of their own?

* When the chapters are going to work together more than now, and are going
to elect WMF board members: Will one chapter have one vote? Will there be 50
US chapters with 50 votes, and one French chapter with one vote?

* Isn't it much easier for WMF to relate to a limited number of national
chapters than with a potentially unlimited number of national, sub national,
or super national chapters?

It might have been better to consider the NYC chapter indeed as a "sub
chapter", a stand-in until there will be an US chapter.

Kind regards

Ziko



2009/1/19 Michael Snow 

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



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> 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,

Two answers to this question:
1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the
moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap. However, it
may be possible in the future if both groups agree to share space, but
we haven't had an issue like that and I can't imagine the benefit of
doing it that way.
2) It is possible that as participation grows, maybe WMNYC could grow
to become WMUSA over time. Maybe there are several sub-national
chapters that combine together to form a single national chapter, or
maybe the one chapter grows slowly to encompass more area. These are
just speculative possibilities, but it's worth noting that
sub-national chapters have these kinds of options.

--Andrew Whitworth

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Delphine Ménard]

[OT]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 13:34, Sebastian Moleski  wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard  wrote:
>> It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :)
>
> I'm not getting the reference. Can you help?

For Germans, power distance [1] [2] is small, which means, for
example, that it's easy for the employees to go to their boss and talk
about things and make decisions on their own, it makes delegation
easier. For the French, power distance is big, which means hierarchy
is much stronger, and chain of command is more important, which makes
delegation harder.

Of course, there are millions of other factors coming into play at any
given time. But I thought it was interesting to see yours and
Florence's reaction on this.

Delphine

[1] http://www.geert-hofstede.com/ (scroll down the page)
[2] and for a little self promotion:
http://blog.notanendive.org/post/2008/07/25/Distance-to-power-somewhere-in-the-middle
-- 
~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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Ting Chen]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> If the Wikimedia Foundations needs chapters that can act and will act, you
> do not want chapters that act only like societies. If you truly want active
> and responsible organisations you have to be clear about this need and
> assess the performance of chapters accordingly. I completely agree that each
> organisation is independent in what it does however the status of chapter
> should relate to its function. When a society does not perform as a chapter,
> you can still have good relations with them but should they have a claim to
> the title of chapter ???
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>   
Yes Gerard you are completely right. I was just going to answer your 
other mail. This is the reason why we check the bylaws, to see that they 
are in accordance with the goal and vision of the fundation.

Greetings
Ting

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Sebastian Moleski]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Florence Devouard  wrote:
>> If this were the case, establishing any sort of organization with
>> organizations as members and some sort of decision-making authority
>> would generally be close to impossible. If there is disagreement in
>> certain areas among the board, the representative's mandate should
>> just exlude that topic area. That means, he can participate in some
>> discussions in a binding way, in others only in an
>> advisory/consultative manner.
>
> Correct.
> Which is fine as long as no decision is made during the general meeting
> with all chapters... :-(

I don't quite follow. I suggested an exclusion by topic. So some
decisions they will participate and vote, others they will not. It
entirely depends on what authority they get from their board/chapter.

>> Sure. The question is one of fairness: is it fair for some chapters to
>> send five delegates (i.e. voices in discussion) when others can only
>> afford to send one?
>
> LOL.
>
> Is that fair that some participants are fluent with English and others
> are not ?
> Is that fair that some participants have a loud voice and others a weak
> one that can not float over the general noise ?
> Is that fair that some participants are easy and outgoing, whilst others
> are rather discreet and shy ?
> Is that fair that a very well developped chapter has only one voice to
> elect a member whilst a brand new little chapter also has one ?
>
> There is no fairness in the world Seb, only an approach of fairness :-)

No need to belittle my point. I was talking about an approach to
fairness that involves giving each chapter as fair a voice as is
possible. Like above, some compromise needs to be made. Having each
chapter choose two representatives is such a compromise.

Sebastian

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
If the Wikimedia Foundations needs chapters that can act and will act, you
do not want chapters that act only like societies. If you truly want active
and responsible organisations you have to be clear about this need and
assess the performance of chapters accordingly. I completely agree that each
organisation is independent in what it does however the status of chapter
should relate to its function. When a society does not perform as a chapter,
you can still have good relations with them but should they have a claim to
the title of chapter ???
Thanks,
  GerardM

2009/1/20 Ting Chen 

> Florence Devouard wrote:
> > Ting Chen wrote:
> >
> >> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hoi,
> >>> The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border
> between
> >>> Belgium and the Netherlands.
> >>>
> >> I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely
> >> that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community support the
> >> idea, I don't see any reason why the Dutch chapter cannot be active in
> >> Belgium. By establishing a branch there the Dutch chapter can also
> >> provide the same services it can provide for its dutch members like tax
> >> exempt status or organize meetings and other activities. If this is a
> >> good thing, and has support from the community, why not?
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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".
> >>>
> >>>
> >> And as far as I know none of our chapters has defined that only people
> >> from a certain region can be their membership. Delphine for example is
> >> member of the french and the italian chapter and not of the german
> >> chapter, although she lives in Frankfurt, Germany.
> >>
> >> And the example of Belgium is another good example for allow subnational
> >> chapters.
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Sure. Suppose the Foundation is not located in the USA, and there is no
> >> USA chapter. The NYC chapter can get for its members tax exemption, so
> >> this is a good thing, why not? The NYC can organize activities in their
> >> area and this is also a good thing, why not?
> >>
> >> And the chapters are by NO MEANs a sub-organization of the WMF. They are
> >> in principle independent and of their own. There are links between the
> >> WMF and the chapters, yes. But as I said, we would also support all
> >> other voluntier activities (or societies) as far as they are affordable.
> >>
> >>> 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 ??
> >>>
> >>>
> >> The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area
> >> negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and
> >> names.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation.
> > The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement.
> > Afaik, only one chapter has.
> > When propositions are received, either we forward them to the Foundation
> > and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we
> > can not negociate.
> >
> > Ant
> >
> >
> > The cretiria for a not overlapping in geographical regions is
> >
> >> mainly to prevent a third party to try to play one chapter against
> another.
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> Hi Ant,
>
> yes, this is also very unconvenient for the foundation and this is the
> reason why the board want to talk to the chapter about the growth and
> maturity of the chapters. If we can help, we would like to help. We want
> that all chapters can do agreements and the foundations don't need to do
> them in these areas. We also hope that 

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Ting Chen]

Florence Devouard wrote:
> Ting Chen wrote:
>   
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> 
>>> Hoi,
>>> The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between
>>> Belgium and the Netherlands.
>>>   
>> I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely 
>> that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community support the 
>> idea, I don't see any reason why the Dutch chapter cannot be active in 
>> Belgium. By establishing a branch there the Dutch chapter can also 
>> provide the same services it can provide for its dutch members like tax 
>> exempt status or organize meetings and other activities. If this is a 
>> good thing, and has support from the community, why not?
>>
>> 
>>> 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".
>>>   
>>>   
>> And as far as I know none of our chapters has defined that only people 
>> from a certain region can be their membership. Delphine for example is 
>> member of the french and the italian chapter and not of the german 
>> chapter, although she lives in Frankfurt, Germany.
>>
>> And the example of Belgium is another good example for allow subnational 
>> chapters.
>> 
>>> 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.
>>>   
>>>   
>> Sure. Suppose the Foundation is not located in the USA, and there is no 
>> USA chapter. The NYC chapter can get for its members tax exemption, so 
>> this is a good thing, why not? The NYC can organize activities in their 
>> area and this is also a good thing, why not?
>>
>> And the chapters are by NO MEANs a sub-organization of the WMF. They are 
>> in principle independent and of their own. There are links between the 
>> WMF and the chapters, yes. But as I said, we would also support all 
>> other voluntier activities (or societies) as far as they are affordable.
>> 
>>> 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 ??
>>>   
>>>   
>> The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area 
>> negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and 
>> names. 
>> 
>
> Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation.
> The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement.
> Afaik, only one chapter has.
> When propositions are received, either we forward them to the Foundation 
> and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we 
> can not negociate.
>
> Ant
>
>
> The cretiria for a not overlapping in geographical regions is
>   
>> mainly to prevent a third party to try to play one chapter against another.
>>
>> 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
>   
Hi Ant,

yes, this is also very unconvenient for the foundation and this is the 
reason why the board want to talk to the chapter about the growth and 
maturity of the chapters. If we can help, we would like to help. We want 
that all chapters can do agreements and the foundations don't need to do 
them in these areas. We also hope that the chapters can talk with the 
museums and archives and organize academies and so on. We would like to 
see the chapters more active.

Ting

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Florence Devouard]

Sebastian Moleski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Florence Devouard  
> wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> This may indeed be different from legal system to legal system. German
> law allows the board to appoint individuals who can represent the
> chapter individually within a clearly defined subset of the board's
> authority. I don't know French law but this may be something articles
> of association/bylaws of your chapter may stipulate too.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> If this were the case, establishing any sort of organization with
> organizations as members and some sort of decision-making authority
> would generally be close to impossible. If there is disagreement in
> certain areas among the board, the representative's mandate should
> just exlude that topic area. That means, he can participate in some
> discussions in a binding way, in others only in an
> advisory/consultative manner.

Correct.
Which is fine as long as no decision is made during the general meeting 
with all chapters... :-(

>>> 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.
> 
> Sure. The question is one of fairness: is it fair for some chapters to
> send five delegates (i.e. voices in discussion) when others can only
> afford to send one?

LOL.

Is that fair that some participants are fluent with English and others 
are not ?
Is that fair that some participants have a loud voice and others a weak 
one that can not float over the general noise ?
Is that fair that some participants are easy and outgoing, whilst others 
are rather discreet and shy ?
Is that fair that a very well developped chapter has only one voice to 
elect a member whilst a brand new little chapter also has one ?

There is no fairness in the world Seb, only an approach of fairness :-)


> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Florence Devouard]

Ting Chen wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between
>> Belgium and the Netherlands.
> I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely 
> that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community support the 
> idea, I don't see any reason why the Dutch chapter cannot be active in 
> Belgium. By establishing a branch there the Dutch chapter can also 
> provide the same services it can provide for its dutch members like tax 
> exempt status or organize meetings and other activities. If this is a 
> good thing, and has support from the community, why not?
> 
>> 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".
>>   
> And as far as I know none of our chapters has defined that only people 
> from a certain region can be their membership. Delphine for example is 
> member of the french and the italian chapter and not of the german 
> chapter, although she lives in Frankfurt, Germany.
> 
> And the example of Belgium is another good example for allow subnational 
> chapters.
>> 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.
>>   
> Sure. Suppose the Foundation is not located in the USA, and there is no 
> USA chapter. The NYC chapter can get for its members tax exemption, so 
> this is a good thing, why not? The NYC can organize activities in their 
> area and this is also a good thing, why not?
> 
> And the chapters are by NO MEANs a sub-organization of the WMF. They are 
> in principle independent and of their own. There are links between the 
> WMF and the chapters, yes. But as I said, we would also support all 
> other voluntier activities (or societies) as far as they are affordable.
>> 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 ??
>>   
> The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area 
> negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and 
> names. 

Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation.
The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement.
Afaik, only one chapter has.
When propositions are received, either we forward them to the Foundation 
and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we 
can not negociate.

Ant


The cretiria for a not overlapping in geographical regions is
> mainly to prevent a third party to try to play one chapter against another.
> 
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is because of a fear that a
commercial organisation plays one chapter against another, I fail to agree
that this is a good reason. Obviously chapters are involved in such
negotiations, that is not the point.

I am quite ok with chapters being different. What I fail to understand is
what it is that chapters are expected to do. Let me sketch a scenario. A
Dutch group wants their chapter only to be a society while another group
wants to organise things engage in dialogue with archives, musea. These two
visions are worlds apart. When you are unlucky you end up with a fight. When
both groups can do their thing, there is no need for this. When the WMF
prohibits two organisations, it will be a recurring fight.
Thanks,
 GerardM

2009/1/20 Ting Chen 

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > So the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is possible commercial
> > nastiness  Does the NYC have a license to negotiate as much as
> another
> > USA (sub)-chapter have.
> Yes, inside their own areas.
>
> >  What is left for the Wikimedia Foundation itself ?
> >
> Why, the WMF has enough things to do, and in my opinion can still do more.
>
> But what the WMF don't want to be is very clear it doesn't want to be a
> USA-chapter.
> > How do you make commercial organisations split along "our" lines ?
> >
> I don't quite understand this question. The german chapter for example
> had long doing commercials in Germany if you will.
> > As I learn more about chapters, I come to my conclusion that they are a
> > confused hodgepodge of conflicting ideas. The notion what the essence of
> a
> > chapter is is no longer clear at all.  I would really LOVE some clear
> > structured text that explains the notion of the chapter and explains what
> > its responsibilities are.
> >
> Gerard, the world is not a unity (may I say thank Gods for that?). What
> works in Germany may not work in Taiwan, may not even work in France or
> the Netherlands. As someone had already pointed out in this thread, the
> french chapter is very different as the german. So, there would be NO
> clear definition of how a standard chapter should look like. The ChapCom
> has a set of criterias before it would recommend an organisation to the
> board as a chapter. That's it mainly.
>
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Ting Chen]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> So the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is possible commercial
> nastiness  Does the NYC have a license to negotiate as much as another
> USA (sub)-chapter have.
Yes, inside their own areas.

>  What is left for the Wikimedia Foundation itself ?
>   
Why, the WMF has enough things to do, and in my opinion can still do more.

But what the WMF don't want to be is very clear it doesn't want to be a 
USA-chapter.
> How do you make commercial organisations split along "our" lines ?
>   
I don't quite understand this question. The german chapter for example 
had long doing commercials in Germany if you will.
> As I learn more about chapters, I come to my conclusion that they are a
> confused hodgepodge of conflicting ideas. The notion what the essence of a
> chapter is is no longer clear at all.  I would really LOVE some clear
> structured text that explains the notion of the chapter and explains what
> its responsibilities are.
>   
Gerard, the world is not a unity (may I say thank Gods for that?). What 
works in Germany may not work in Taiwan, may not even work in France or 
the Netherlands. As someone had already pointed out in this thread, the 
french chapter is very different as the german. So, there would be NO 
clear definition of how a standard chapter should look like. The ChapCom 
has a set of criterias before it would recommend an organisation to the 
board as a chapter. That's it mainly.

Greetings
Ting

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Sebastian Moleski]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard  wrote:
> It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :)

I'm not getting the reference. Can you help?

>> 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.
>
> [snip]
>> 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.
>
> I tend to agree with you, but I believe you have to keep in mind many
> singularities within chapters. This, if it happens, would be a very
> big strech for some of the chapters, where decisions are made
> "collectively" all the time, and the decision is a product of
> "consensus" and debate, and can only with difficulties be handed to
> one person.

Yes, I agree too. That's why I wrote it would be ideal to have two people.

> Make it a cultural particularity or a wiki-culture heritage, whatever,
> but I think that some chapters might have a very hard time appointing
> who they consider "the right person" to make decisions that could
> engage the chapter for a long term plan of any kind. If only because
> their strength lies in having very different individuals in their
> board and/or membership, with different ideas, which act as synergy
> when put together, but could lead to a standstill if left "alone"
> (think for an extreme example, the person "mandated" says yes and then
> is disavowed by the board/the members etc.).

If the chapters each send two representatives and there's disagreement
among the board, the mandate could also stipulate that they both have
to agree to give a vote on behalf of the chapter. This obviously gets
quite unwieldy with more than two representatives.

> I do believe it is something to consider. If decisions are made on a
> consensus basis, then maybe this does not have such an influence. As
> soon as you try and introduce some "voting" system or other, the
> balance might be heavily tipped one way and not reflect what would
> come out of a consensus, taking all particularities into consideration
> (which does not mean you have to accommodate them, but which does mean
> you have to look at them).

Yes, this does open a few issues. It's something we should discuss in
April. Perhaps it might be useful for the chapters represented there
to formulate some common opinon on chapters or the chapter-foundation
relationship.

> But then, take all of the above with a grain of salt, I'm French, and
> we French think we deserve our place in the sun ;-)

Diversity in opinion and thought is what makes us strong :)

Sebastian

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is possible commercial
nastiness  Does the NYC have a license to negotiate as much as another
USA (sub)-chapter have. What is left for the Wikimedia Foundation itself ?
How do you make commercial organisations split along "our" lines ?

As I learn more about chapters, I come to my conclusion that they are a
confused hodgepodge of conflicting ideas. The notion what the essence of a
chapter is is no longer clear at all.  I would really LOVE some clear
structured text that explains the notion of the chapter and explains what
its responsibilities are.
Thanks,
  GerardM

2009/1/20 Ting Chen 

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between
> > Belgium and the Netherlands.
> I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely
> that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community support the
> idea, I don't see any reason why the Dutch chapter cannot be active in
> Belgium. By establishing a branch there the Dutch chapter can also
> provide the same services it can provide for its dutch members like tax
> exempt status or organize meetings and other activities. If this is a
> good thing, and has support from the community, why not?
>
> > 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".
> >
> And as far as I know none of our chapters has defined that only people
> from a certain region can be their membership. Delphine for example is
> member of the french and the italian chapter and not of the german
> chapter, although she lives in Frankfurt, Germany.
>
> And the example of Belgium is another good example for allow subnational
> chapters.
> > 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.
> >
> Sure. Suppose the Foundation is not located in the USA, and there is no
> USA chapter. The NYC chapter can get for its members tax exemption, so
> this is a good thing, why not? The NYC can organize activities in their
> area and this is also a good thing, why not?
>
> And the chapters are by NO MEANs a sub-organization of the WMF. They are
> in principle independent and of their own. There are links between the
> WMF and the chapters, yes. But as I said, we would also support all
> other voluntier activities (or societies) as far as they are affordable.
> > 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 ??
> >
> The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area
> negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and
> names. The cretiria for a not overlapping in geographical regions is
> mainly to prevent a third party to try to play one chapter against another.
>
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[joseph seddon]

Just to look at this from another angle, what reasoning was there to limit the 
geographical extent of the new york chapter
to the new york city metropolitan area. Why not the entire state of new york? 
Does having this NYC chapter prevent the 
existence of a chapter representing the whole state of new york?
 
 
_
Choose the perfect PC or mobile phone for you
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/130777504/direct/01/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Ting Chen]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between
> Belgium and the Netherlands.
I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely 
that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community support the 
idea, I don't see any reason why the Dutch chapter cannot be active in 
Belgium. By establishing a branch there the Dutch chapter can also 
provide the same services it can provide for its dutch members like tax 
exempt status or organize meetings and other activities. If this is a 
good thing, and has support from the community, why not?

> 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".
>   
And as far as I know none of our chapters has defined that only people 
from a certain region can be their membership. Delphine for example is 
member of the french and the italian chapter and not of the german 
chapter, although she lives in Frankfurt, Germany.

And the example of Belgium is another good example for allow subnational 
chapters.
> 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.
>   
Sure. Suppose the Foundation is not located in the USA, and there is no 
USA chapter. The NYC chapter can get for its members tax exemption, so 
this is a good thing, why not? The NYC can organize activities in their 
area and this is also a good thing, why not?

And the chapters are by NO MEANs a sub-organization of the WMF. They are 
in principle independent and of their own. There are links between the 
WMF and the chapters, yes. But as I said, we would also support all 
other voluntier activities (or societies) as far as they are affordable.
> 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 ??
>   
The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area 
negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and 
names. The cretiria for a not overlapping in geographical regions is 
mainly to prevent a third party to try to play one chapter against another.

Greetings
Ting

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Delphine Ménard]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:41, Florence Devouard  wrote:
> Sebastian Moleski wrote:

>> 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.

I an not sure we need a lawyer here. Even in France :)

The Board (in a French association) has been mandated by the General
Assembly to make the decisions concerning the association. As such, it
is totally in the realm of its power to delegate someone to
"represent" the association at a meeting and even "make decisions" on
its behalf. The only thing being, if the person makes a decision that
the board is not ready to support, then the board has to live with it
and be accountable in the next General Assembly.

As I pointed out, I think it's more of a cultural issue than a legal one. :)


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Sebastian Moleski]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Florence Devouard  wrote:
>> 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.

This may indeed be different from legal system to legal system. German
law allows the board to appoint individuals who can represent the
chapter individually within a clearly defined subset of the board's
authority. I don't know French law but this may be something articles
of association/bylaws of your chapter may stipulate too.

> 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.

If this were the case, establishing any sort of organization with
organizations as members and some sort of decision-making authority
would generally be close to impossible. If there is disagreement in
certain areas among the board, the representative's mandate should
just exlude that topic area. That means, he can participate in some
discussions in a binding way, in others only in an
advisory/consultative manner.

>> 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.

Sure. The question is one of fairness: is it fair for some chapters to
send five delegates (i.e. voices in discussion) when others can only
afford to send one?

Sebastian

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Delphine Ménard]

It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:22, Sebastian Moleski  wrote:
>> Florence wrote:

Sebastian wrote:
> 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.

I don't agree much on the "efficiency" of a "conference" over a
"meeting". I think they are two very different ways of people getting
together. Which does not make one better than the other, they are just
very different things.

Florence wrote:
>> 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.

Sebastian wrote:
> 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.

[snip]
> 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.

I tend to agree with you, but I believe you have to keep in mind many
singularities within chapters. This, if it happens, would be a very
big strech for some of the chapters, where decisions are made
"collectively" all the time, and the decision is a product of
"consensus" and debate, and can only with difficulties be handed to
one person.

Make it a cultural particularity or a wiki-culture heritage, whatever,
but I think that some chapters might have a very hard time appointing
who they consider "the right person" to make decisions that could
engage the chapter for a long term plan of any kind. If only because
their strength lies in having very different individuals in their
board and/or membership, with different ideas, which act as synergy
when put together, but could lead to a standstill if left "alone"
(think for an extreme example, the person "mandated" says yes and then
is disavowed by the board/the members etc.).

To try and rephrase Florence's concerns expressed at the beginning,
which were some of mine when we debated Wikimedia NYC in the chapters
committee, let us try with and example.

Today, it is great that Wikimedia has Wikimedia NYC, because it gives
a great frame for people in metropolitan areas of the US to be active
in a positive and helping way.

My thought, however, is that it opens the door, to a potential of XX
(hear many) US-based chapters, (as well as XX India-based chapters or
XX-whatever-country-where-it-makes-perfect-sense-to-have-sub-national-chapters)
to have a heavy (or even majority) representation of one
country/culture(or approaching culture) within the "chapters body", if
there is such a thing.

I do believe it is something to consider. If decisions are made on a
consensus basis, then maybe this does not have such an influence. As
soon as you try and introduce some "voting" system or other, the
balance might be heavily tipped one way and not reflect what would
come out of a consensus, taking all particularities into consideration
(which does not mean you have to accommodate them, but which does mean
you have to look at them).

But then, take all of the above with a grain of salt, I'm French, and
we French think we deserve our place in the sun ;-)


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Florence Devouard]

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/l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Sebastian Moleski]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Florence Devouard]

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  
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 

> 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 
> >
> >
> >> 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 a

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Guillaume Paumier]

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  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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Ting Chen]

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 
>
>   
>> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Florence Devouard]

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 
> 
>> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 

> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Ting Chen  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, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Jimmy Wales]

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