Thomas Dalton,
I'm not on Interal-L, nor is any other Wikimedia volunteer from Brazil. This
is why I'm making the suggestion below. Feel free to share this message on
Internal-L.
Instead of discussing on Internal-L, among only yourselves, the arguments
collaboratively created by Brazilian volunteers, I believe we should discuss
them on the wiki page where it was originally created, right?
http://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Relacionamento_com_a_Wikimedia_Foundation/Comi…
Could you please post your comment on the discussion page associated with
the link above? I'd love to carry on with the discussion with you and any
other interested person there.
Thanks,
Thomas de Souza Buckup
<http://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Relacionamento_com_a_Wikimedia_Foundation/Comit%C3%AA_de_Cap%C3%ADtulos/Resposta_aos_questionamentos_2010_02#On_the_choice_of_a_distributed_chapter_model>
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Thank you for sending us this explanation. I'm
afraid a disagree agree
with your reasons, though.
Reasons
The single most important reason is scalability in the Brazilian context.
Brazil has almost two hundred million people spread over a continental
area,
with strikingly unequal distribution of wealth
and education.
Incorporating and maintaining a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in
Brazil represents a significant cost, and authority hierarchies create
distrust and dissipate the motivation of volunteers.
Does incorporating and maintaining an NGO in Brazil could
significantly more than in other countries? I disagree about
hierarchies creating distrust. A chapter doesn't need a strong
hierarchy, it just needs one to handle admin and money, really. A
well-run chapter shouldn't dissipate motivation.
Thus, a single Wikimedia chapter would not be
able to handle the
diversity
of challenges and the organizational overhead.
I don't see how that follows.