I'm only responding to the following two segments because these appear
to be the only parts where we actually disagree.
On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:33 AM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
Writing two sentences is not a solution to a lack of a "chapter
approval process" document.
Sorry, here we seem to differ a bit: If I once see a process in the
Wikimedia world which takes two sentences to describe, then I'm happy.
The process is as simple as I wrote: Get a group together, write
bylaws, translate, send in via email. If I use three paragraphs to
describe this, surely the only thing that can happen is that the
process becomes more complicated and more formal, and I oppose that.
I'm not talking about length for length's sake. Simply saying "Write
bylaws, send them in english, done" does not cut it as a chapter
approval process because it does not at all discuss what happens after
that point, how ChapCom decides things, by what standard they use to
determine if a chapter should be created and what litmus tests they
use to determine the quantitative values of that, how the WMF actually
approves a chapter, and then what happens next after that. That's all
information that is part of the chapter approval process, and writing
two lines simply fails to address any of that.
That can only
come from ChapCom or the
foundation themselves as they are the ones who approve things. Two
years of no public guidelines is unacceptable.
Yes, zero is not good. But you really failed to convince me why "two
sentences" are not a solution - honestly, I'd have no idea how to fill
an entire "chapter approval process" document, we're not using
scheduling hearings, pre-trial motions, subpoenas and what not here,
sorry. There is just not that much to write.
See above. I'm referring to the process, not the procedure. I'm not
saying it needs to say "Connect line 4a to form 12b" but it does need
to say the things I mentioned in the paragraph above.
-Dan