On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)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