On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 14:49, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was very tiny having two chapters?
If the very tiny country had enough active wikimedians to create critical mass for two chapters, and if those two groups found that they absolutely could not work together and that it would be far easier for them to organize separately, then yes that would be okay. The size of the region isn't nearly so important as other factors like activity level. We also cannot pretend that we know how people in country X should organize better then those people do themselves. Organizers will tell us what's right for them, we do not tell them what is right for them (although we can always make thoughtful suggestions).
I completely disagree with your analysis here.
No, if a very tiny country had enough wikimedians to create critical mass to create two chapters, _and if those two groups found that they absolutely could not work together_ (even if it's easier), then no, the Wikimedia Foundation should never ever agree to recognize both chapters. Chapters _must_ make sense. Actually, this is true of tiny or big countries.
A NYC chapter makes sense, because today, there is no other "chapter" that will not go and act in New York without consulting with the chapter. And the WMF operates on a different level. Two, three, twenty groups (however active) that potentially have the exact same interlocutors should not be allowed to be called "Wikimedia" and be given the name of chapter.
This is where we might want to have national chapters precluding sub-national chapters "that make sense". Belgium in that regard is an interesting example. If you let a Wikimedia Belgie-only-dutch-speaking chapter happen, or a Wikimedia Belgique-only-French-speaking chapter happen (as was proposed a looong time ago), you are stuck with the fact that Wikimedia Belgium is in one language and not in the other. However, setting aside all cultural and linguistic aspects of the country, which are real, and even legal aspects which might be different depending the "region", the "national institutions" are _national_. As such, they should have one interlocutor and one only. This said, in Belgium, it might make perfect sense to have two sections of the same chapter, one that will focus on one language and/or regional institutions, the other on the other.
And in my opinion, it also would be ok if one group of people focused on one language was to start the chapter, with little involvement from the other language(s), as long as the bylaws would reflect this diversity and allow for other to join.
Delphine