On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :)
I'm not getting the reference. Can you help?
I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter.
[snip]
On of the main issues I see here was that those attending the chapter meeting had no "mandate" from their chapters to enter into any sort of agreement. If that is addressed prior to the next meeting, i.e. each chapter sends a representative with the necessary mandate to vote, I don't see why we would not be able to make a decision at the meeting that binds the chapters that attend.
I tend to agree with you, but I believe you have to keep in mind many singularities within chapters. This, if it happens, would be a very big strech for some of the chapters, where decisions are made "collectively" all the time, and the decision is a product of "consensus" and debate, and can only with difficulties be handed to one person.
Yes, I agree too. That's why I wrote it would be ideal to have two people.
Make it a cultural particularity or a wiki-culture heritage, whatever, but I think that some chapters might have a very hard time appointing who they consider "the right person" to make decisions that could engage the chapter for a long term plan of any kind. If only because their strength lies in having very different individuals in their board and/or membership, with different ideas, which act as synergy when put together, but could lead to a standstill if left "alone" (think for an extreme example, the person "mandated" says yes and then is disavowed by the board/the members etc.).
If the chapters each send two representatives and there's disagreement among the board, the mandate could also stipulate that they both have to agree to give a vote on behalf of the chapter. This obviously gets quite unwieldy with more than two representatives.
I do believe it is something to consider. If decisions are made on a consensus basis, then maybe this does not have such an influence. As soon as you try and introduce some "voting" system or other, the balance might be heavily tipped one way and not reflect what would come out of a consensus, taking all particularities into consideration (which does not mean you have to accommodate them, but which does mean you have to look at them).
Yes, this does open a few issues. It's something we should discuss in April. Perhaps it might be useful for the chapters represented there to formulate some common opinon on chapters or the chapter-foundation relationship.
But then, take all of the above with a grain of salt, I'm French, and we French think we deserve our place in the sun ;-)
Diversity in opinion and thought is what makes us strong :)
Sebastian