Board resolutions (chapters)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
114 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Board resolutions (chapters)

Michael Snow-3
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Florence Devouard-3
Michael Snow wrote:

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


Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Michael Snow-3
Florence Devouard wrote:
> For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not
> subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And
> the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been
> mandatory that names used be of the type Wikimedia + Country + blabla).
>  
It is a chapter. The division indicated by the "sub" in sub-national
chapters is in the nation, not necessarily in the chapter. There is no
chapter for Wikimedia NYC to be a subchapter of. People are welcome to
use Wikimedia US-NYC (or NYC-US, it doesn't matter to me) where the
designation of sub-national chapter is important, though.
> I know some guidelines circulated internally, but I do believe it should
> not only be internal. I went to the resolution authorizing its
> recognition as a sub-chapter
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City)
> and I found reference to "Wikimedia Foundation: A Framework for
> Encouraging the Development of Sub-National Chapters", but no idea where
> to find this document.
I believe I shared the FAQ on this list earlier, but I've taken a copy
and put it on Meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters

--Michael Snow


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Austin Hair
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> For the sake of clarity, I'd like to ask that a mean is given to
> recognize that a sub-chapter is a sub-chapter rather than a chapter.
> If not in the name that we use within ourselves, at least on meta and
> internal pages. For now, I guess everyone from the house can guess that
> it is a subchapter, but when we have 50 chapters and 50 sub-chapters, it
> may not be so easy to deal with.

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

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

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

Austin Hair
Chairman pro tempore
Wikimedia Chapters Committee

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Jimmy Wales-3
Austin Hair wrote:
> Every chapter has unique
> considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be
> it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're
> concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter.

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

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

has 18.8 million people.

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

at 16.4 million.

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

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

--Jimbo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Austin Hair
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Austin

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales-3
Hoi,
When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA legal
system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is
necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things like
charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no real
need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society.

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

2009/1/20 Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>

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

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Ting Chen-2
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:

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

Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an
USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get
all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not
that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay.
Thanks,
      GerardM


2009/1/20 Ting Chen <[hidden email]>

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

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

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

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

-Dan

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]>wrote:

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



--
Dan Rosenthal
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
What I said was that the NY chapter prevents an USA chapter. It would be
obvious to have one such. With one in place, you can organise to your hearts
content wherever you like.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/1/20 Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]>

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

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Ting Chen-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-3
Michael Snow wrote:
> Florence Devouard wrote:
>> For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not
>> subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And
>> the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been
>> mandatory that names used be of the type Wikimedia + Country + blabla).
>>  
> It is a chapter.

...

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

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

?

Jeeee....


  The division indicated by the "sub" in sub-national

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


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

Ant

> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

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

--
André Engels, [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Jimmy Wales-3
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Ting Chen-2
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Ting Chen <[hidden email]> 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, [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Ting Chen-2
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 <[hidden email]>

> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Florence Devouard-3
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 <[hidden email]>
>
>> 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
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Ting Chen-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]>
>
>  
>> 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
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>    
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234 ... 6