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