Hoi, So far a chapter was created per jurisdiction; as the law of the Netherlands is different from the law in Germany it is best to have one organisation set up in this way if you want to make use of tax deduction and the like.
At this moment there are no sub-national chapters so this notion is academic. It would make sense to have a US chapter in the first place. When a particular chapter has proven itself, it makes sense to give it more influence. The German chapter is well organised and has a lot of experience. I would rate their contribution higher then a newly created chapter.
It is about getting the job done and get a decent job done. If it is only about power, then I think this whole notion stinks.
Thanks, GerardM
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.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l