The comment is a little bit partial.
The governance is partially connected with the local system law. In some countries no profit association are linked to strict parameters and the governance is not an option. I don't know personally the system law of France, but I suppose that it's weaker than in other countries.
The last point is connected with the point of privileges which are, at the opposite, balanced by stricter parameters than user groups.
Chapters have some obligations compensated by few privileges, and honestly the state of User Group is at the moment the easiest way to get an official recognition by WMF.
It's sufficient to check how many user groups have been created recently and how many chapters to define clearly if there is a "marginalization of alternatives".
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 09:55, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:
The current situation (further) demonstrates a huge weakness in the current system of the governance of local communities. The problems being discussed here are far from unique to Wikimedia France and can be seen not only in other affiliates, but also in the long-festering problems of the administration of Wikimedia projects. As Rogol and others note... the Foundation has it hands tied to a large degree because of both legal and ideological concerns. But this means that individuals and small groups of people are able to work the system to their advantage, with little to no accountability to either their local communities or to the overall movement.
As for the idea of forming alternate organizations, that is easier said than done. I speak from my experience with Wiki Learning Tec de Monterrey. It took us almost 2 years to get approval from AffCom as a user group among other struggles. The privileges that chapters have in particular allow for marginalization of alternatives.
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 11:38:01 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation is free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to control.