On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/1 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com:
If we consider the chapter seats to be semi-community seats, I think it makes sense to bring in some kind of relation with either the number of members, or even better (but harder to regulate) the activity of a chapter. There are a lot of chapters, and I think it makes sense that only "active" chapters should have a say in this. Otherwise that would only attract people to get a chapter just to be able to vote. I think that is something to consider.
I agree, some kind of proportionality is probably required. If it's one-chapter-one-vote then we also have issues with sub-national chapters - should they get one vote per country or one vote per chapter? I think it would be best to keep it proportional by some measure. Financial turnover might be better than membership - it's not so easy to pad out with inactive members.
Proportional chapter seats would mean 2 Board members from WM DE :) -- which leads us to the same situation like we have with en.wp at the project level. BTW, while I would like to see some WM DE members into the Board, I would like to see in the Board people from some other chapters, too. I think that better idea is to find the best possible people from the chapters by reaching consensus in inter chapter coordination. And I am very sure that chapters are able to make the best possible choices.