Hey I think that chapters represent a different part of the movement, and that their input in board composition results in different candidates than we would possibly elect :) At the same time the increased scope of affcom also gives us the option of increasing the scope of these two selected seats to include thematic organisations and user groups (giving them more "community coverage" than is the case now). That would be a good discussion to have over de coming months as the selected seats term expires in july next year…
thoughts anyone? Jan-Bart On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:42 AM, James Alexander <jameso...@gmail.com> wrote: > Snipping a bunch for simplicities sake > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede < > jdevre...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >> I simply don't agree. >> a) Chapters are part of the community >> b) Whenever a vote comes up for an appointed seat that seat obviously does >> not vote, therefore the (s)elected seats have a majority vote on any >> appointed seat (5 our of 9 votes) Apart from that I would say that Jimmy's >> seat is a community seat, but recognise that not all share that viewpoint. >> >> Jan-Bart >> > > :-/ To be honest I don't particularly like this meme that the chapter are > part of the community either. The chapters may be part of the community > (and so the statement not false) but we use the phrasing in such a way as > to say that they are more then they are. There may be a part of the > community but they are really a very small part of it overall. > > Their power in board selection and movement voice (both formally and > informally) is disproportionately huge and we set them up to represent the > community when that is a serious misstatement. They represent their members > who are a very small subset of the community and often have a very > different goal and interest set then the, much larger, remainder of the > community and depending on the chapter may include more donors or readers > then editors. > > That is not to say they don't do good things at times (or that it is a > problem to include donors or readers, personally I think they are part of > our larger community) but we should not confuse what they actually are. > > Jimmy is a whole different question ;) I would certainly say he deserves a > seat at the table, I prefer to just categorize him as "Jimmy" because he's > just a class of his own in all ways :). > > James > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
