geni napisał(a):
On 10/24/06, Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 10/24/06, geni wrote:
Trying to set up a firm policy of one chapter per
country is a really
bad idea since it gives us the problem of trying to define what a
country is.
Hence the reason why we are not trying.
One chapter per "jurisdiction" is closer to what we are trying to do.
Even that doesn't work (see transnistria) and then there is the issue
that Kaliningrad and Vladivostok are under the same jurisdiction.
I would approach this from a more practical angle, i.e. do we *need* a
chapter in a given territory?
Hong Kong: Yes, it is/will eventually be China. Go ahead and try to set
up a non-profit tied to a US-based Foundation in mainland China. :) If
we can have Honk Kong instead, lets do it.
Poland: WMPL has been set up and is doing fine. We could go for a
sub-chapter in each voivodship but right now that doesn't make any sense
(and probably never will ;)).
US: Being the huuuge country that they are, the US might benefit from a
more local (e.g. state-level) structure than most smaller countries (see
Poland above).
So, to answer Illario's question about South Tyrol with a question of my
own: Is South Tyrol within the 'reach' of WMIT? If so, I would be
inclined to say no to a South Tyrol chapter. If not, however, a new
chapter (possibly a subdivision of WMIT) would be something to consider.
--
TOR