Hello,
I created a page on meta, where we can brainstorm about ways the chapters can determine their method for selecting Board seats. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats
This is going to happen, so let us work together to get the best of all ideas.
I put two sections, 1) "how to gather candidates" and 2) "how to select among candidates".
I guess the traditional view goes like this: Community elected: 1) nominations from the community, 2) votes from the community (1p=1vote) Board appointed: 2) nominations and 1) votes from the Board (this has the inefficiency, that the Board may like to appoint someone who is not willing to serve)
I find it interesting to consider mixing these up: a) Nominations from the community + votes from the chapters b) Nominations from the chapters + votes from the community
Of course, for "the chapters", there are multiple possibilities - all members? comm members? one 'vote' per chapter? (each chapter has to reach a decision internally) all chapter 'votes' equal? proportional to membership? something else?
I look forward to seeing what ideas others have.
cheers, Brianna
-- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
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.
If the voting procedure would be motivating towards activities, that would be great. It might even stimulate chapters to do things, which is at the end good for the movement as a whole. Also do I feel that active chapters have a better idea of what is going on and what is needed in the board. They have in general a better view on which problems are ongoing, and need expertise (or certain community skills) to be solved.
For instance, if the active chapters feel that there is a need for some technical development on the software, they could choose to pick a mediawiki developer as their candidate, or at least someone who advocates the development of software. If they feel that the relations with the chapters and the WMF are going wrong, they could choose someone who favors the chapter idea. After all, Board Membership is besides trust also a lot about setting priorities. Where does the Movement spend it's limited resources (not only money, but also - not exclusively - volunteer man power, knowledge of local culture, enthusiasm and staff time) on and how are the considerations being made. What type of organization (movement) do we want? All very important questions to consider when choosing a Board Member.
With that in mind, I feel that it is better to let the more experienced and active chapters have a bigger say relatively. Of course all chapters should be talking, but there should be some kind of balance. To keep things easy, one could choose to give a chapter 1 vote per 100 members. Or 50. Or whatever we want.
I know this is not a precise measure for activity, but it's something. Does anyone have a better idea to measure activity of an organization objectively in this context?
BR, Lodewijk
2008/5/1, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
Hello,
I created a page on meta, where we can brainstorm about ways the chapters can determine their method for selecting Board seats. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats
This is going to happen, so let us work together to get the best of all ideas.
I put two sections, 1) "how to gather candidates" and 2) "how to select among candidates".
I guess the traditional view goes like this: Community elected: 1) nominations from the community, 2) votes from the community (1p=1vote) Board appointed: 2) nominations and 1) votes from the Board (this has the inefficiency, that the Board may like to appoint someone who is not willing to serve)
I find it interesting to consider mixing these up: a) Nominations from the community + votes from the chapters b) Nominations from the chapters + votes from the community
Of course, for "the chapters", there are multiple possibilities - all members? comm members? one 'vote' per chapter? (each chapter has to reach a decision internally) all chapter 'votes' equal? proportional to membership? something else?
I look forward to seeing what ideas others have.
cheers, Brianna
-- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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.
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
Hoi, Maybe but as far as I know Hong Kong DOES have a separate jurisdiction. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
At this moment there are no sub-national chapters so this notion is academic.
Didn't we just get a Hong Kong chapter?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/5/1 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Maybe but as far as I know Hong Kong DOES have a separate jurisdiction. Thanks, GerardM
Depends what you mean by "jurisdiction", I guess. It's certainly not a sovereign nation. You can draw jurisdictional lines at all kinds of levels (no-one is suggesting the EU should have just one chapter, for example, nor that every city should have one).
Every US state has a separate jurisdiction as well. One chapter per state seems the most consistent. If the EU has more than one chapter, than the US should as well.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Maybe but as far as I know Hong Kong DOES have a separate jurisdiction. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
At this moment there are no sub-national chapters so this notion is academic.
Didn't we just get a Hong Kong chapter?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Didn't they get the Pennsylvania chapter operational yet?
No, it's stalled. The chapcom doesn't yet have a way to deal with US chapters. There are several complicating factors that have been difficult to work around. Until the issue is resolved by the board/chapcom, all US chapters are stalled.
--Andrew Whitworth
--- On Thu, 5/1/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 7:33 AM
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.
The US sub-national issue is not about power but logistics. One national chapter will never self-organize in the US. All the incentives to do so (tax-deductabilty, legal support, press contacts) have been "stolen" by the WMF. So if WMF is going to declare that the US must have one national chapter (or begin with one) they must organize it for the US or it will never happen. I am not sure which of those outcomes is more embarassing for the people who believe chapters are important.
Sub-national chapters in the US are still capable of self-organizing because of there is incentive to do something local with WMF. But no-one in the US percieves the whole nation as "local". I doubt there would actually be one per state, but certainly some states like Texas would have one while others might be regional like New England. However I cannot see Wikimedians in the US getting together and forming a national chapter. There is simply no benefit to the US Wikimedians for having a US national chapter.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Sorry, I still do not understand why there cannot be a US Chapter. It would be useful to make clear that WMF is not an US American organization by character, but only by legal status. An US chapter would also take away the concern that US Americans cannot take part in the chapter seats elections. An US Chapter could organize an annual convention and take over the press contacts from WMF related to US media. It could raise money by asking a member's fee. Ziko
2008/5/1 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
--- On Thu, 5/1/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 7:33 AM
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.
The US sub-national issue is not about power but logistics. One national chapter will never self-organize in the US. All the incentives to do so (tax-deductabilty, legal support, press contacts) have been "stolen" by the WMF. So if WMF is going to declare that the US must have one national chapter (or begin with one) they must organize it for the US or it will never happen. I am not sure which of those outcomes is more embarassing for the people who believe chapters are important.
Sub-national chapters in the US are still capable of self-organizing because of there is incentive to do something local with WMF. But no-one in the US percieves the whole nation as "local". I doubt there would actually be one per state, but certainly some states like Texas would have one while others might be regional like New England. However I cannot see Wikimedians in the US getting together and forming a national chapter. There is simply no benefit to the US Wikimedians for having a US national chapter.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Because there is not the incentive to create this. Yes a US chapter *could* take on a press role *if* it existed. But since the WMF staff handle all US press issues there is no pressure to create an organization to handle press issues. Substitute press for legal or tax-deduction or any other issues chapter are created to handle.
I am not saying it is impossible for a US national chapter to exist. But it will not be created through grass-roots self-organization as was the case for other chapters. The WMF looks foolish to sit on their hands and wait for it to form. And WMF is not credible when they collect US tax-deductible money, solicit US press, etc. and then say US Wikimedians have the same opportunity to create a national chapter as everyone else if they want to participate in chapter stuff. The honest options are a) WMF staff organize a US national chapter or b) Chapter committee approves US subnational chapter where there is grass-roots activity.
BTW I am not really bent out of shape over the suffrage issue or crying disenfranchisement over this. In my eyes, this just about the credibility of the idea that chapters are a pervasive and key part of the whole organization. Personally I think it is still up in the air whether chapters are generaly important actors or if they are basically Wikimedia fan clubs. Obviously the German one has proven that a strong chapter is a great thing. But I am not convinced that we can expect most chapters to be strong ones and the German experience might be a fluke.
Birgitte SB
--- On Thu, 5/1/08, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 10:13 AM Sorry, I still do not understand why there cannot be a US Chapter. It would be useful to make clear that WMF is not an US American organization by character, but only by legal status. An US chapter would also take away the concern that US Americans cannot take part in the chapter seats elections. An US Chapter could organize an annual convention and take over the press contacts from WMF related to US media. It could raise money by asking a member's fee. Ziko
2008/5/1 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
--- On Thu, 5/1/08, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gerard Meijssen
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected
Board seats - brainstorming
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 7:33 AM
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.
The US sub-national issue is not about power but
logistics. One national chapter will never self-organize in the US. All the incentives to do so (tax-deductabilty, legal support, press contacts) have been "stolen" by the WMF. So if WMF is going to declare that the US must have one national chapter (or begin with one) they must organize it for the US or it will never happen. I am not sure which of those outcomes is more embarassing for the people who believe chapters are important.
Sub-national chapters in the US are still capable of
self-organizing because of there is incentive to do something local with WMF. But no-one in the US percieves the whole nation as "local". I doubt there would actually be one per state, but certainly some states like Texas would have one while others might be regional like New England. However I cannot see Wikimedians in the US getting together and forming a national chapter. There is simply no benefit to the US Wikimedians for having a US national chapter.
Birgitte SB
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I am not saying it is impossible for a US national chapter to exist. But it will not be created through grass-roots self-organization as was the case for other chapters. The WMF looks foolish to sit on their hands and wait for it to form. And WMF is not credible when they collect US tax-deductible money, solicit US press, etc. and then say US Wikimedians have the same opportunity to create a national chapter as everyone else if they want to participate in chapter stuff. The honest options are a) WMF staff organize a US national chapter or b) Chapter committee approves US subnational chapter where there is grass-roots activity.
I disagree with this completely. Grass-roots organization is how the US chapter(s) will form, it's the way things are currently progressing. There are grass roots organizations, that I've heard of (which may not be a comprehensive list) starting in many places: New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, and other places. Progress has been mostly stagnant in these groups for many reasons, all of which are organizational failures on the part of the WMF/Chapcom.
It is my personal estimate that there could be as many as 10 or 12 active subnational US chapters operational within a year if all barriers to entry were removed. Of course, there are many logistical issues to work out before those barriers can be removed completely.
--Andrew Whitworth
--- On Thu, 5/1/08, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 12:17 PM On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I am not saying it is impossible for a US national
chapter to exist. But it will not be created through grass-roots self-organization as was the case for other chapters. The WMF looks foolish to sit on their hands and wait for it to form. And WMF is not credible when they collect US tax-deductible money, solicit US press, etc. and then say US Wikimedians have the same opportunity to create a national chapter as everyone else if they want to participate in chapter stuff. The honest options are a) WMF staff organize a US national chapter or b) Chapter committee approves US subnational chapter where there is grass-roots activity.
I disagree with this completely. Grass-roots organization is how the US chapter(s) will form, it's the way things are currently progressing. There are grass roots organizations, that I've heard of (which may not be a comprehensive list) starting in many places: New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, and other places. Progress has been mostly stagnant in these groups for many reasons, all of which are organizational failures on the part of the WMF/Chapcom.
It is my personal estimate that there could be as many as 10 or 12 active subnational US chapters operational within a year if all barriers to entry were removed. Of course, there are many logistical issues to work out before those barriers can be removed completely.
You misunderstood my message (probably because did a poor job qualifying it). I agree with you that if subnational *chapters* are allowed there will be the grassroots organization for them. I speaking of the grassroots organization of a national *chapter* if subnantional *chapters* are disalowed or required to be subchapters of an existiong national one.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Don't we have a Philadelphia or a Pennsylvania chapter too?
-Dan On May 1, 2008, at 8:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Don't we have a Philadelphia or a Pennsylvania chapter too?
Not yet, though these are in a planning phase. US chapters are on hold pending some principal recommendations by the ChapCom and decisions by the board.
Michael
I see. Well on that note, can I announce the start of a working group for the development of a DC/Baltimore metropolitan area chapter. Both Wikimedians from the DC area as well as those with chapters experience are invited to help out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swatjester/WMF_DC
-Dan On May 1, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Don't we have a Philadelphia or a Pennsylvania chapter too?
Not yet, though these are in a planning phase. US chapters are on hold pending some principal recommendations by the ChapCom and decisions by the board.
Michael
-- Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I see. Well on that note, can I announce the start of a working group for the development of a DC/Baltimore metropolitan area chapter. Both Wikimedians from the DC area as well as those with chapters experience are invited to help out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swatjester/WMF_DC
-Dan
Can you please move that to Meta-Wiki where most of the other chapter discussion/creation pages are? Not all people from that area use enwiki, so it might be better to hold it on the multi-lingual/-project Meta-Wiki. :-)
Yeah, it's been moved it's now on meta at [[Wikimedia DC]] -dan On May 1, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I see. Well on that note, can I announce the start of a working group for the development of a DC/Baltimore metropolitan area chapter. Both Wikimedians from the DC area as well as those with chapters experience are invited to help out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swatjester/WMF_DC
-Dan
Can you please move that to Meta-Wiki where most of the other chapter discussion/creation pages are? Not all people from that area use enwiki, so it might be better to hold it on the multi-lingual/-project Meta-Wiki. :-)
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Michael Bimmler wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Don't we have a Philadelphia or a Pennsylvania chapter too?
Not yet, though these are in a planning phase. US chapters are on hold pending some principal recommendations by the ChapCom and decisions by the board.
Michael
In case it is necessary, I would like to clarify that the board is not currently working on the issue. No proposition on which to discuss has been made. So, it is not on the agenda.
I would love for it to be on the plate, but we need an embryo of a proposition to discuss upon.
Ant
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Michael Bimmler wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Don't we have a Philadelphia or a Pennsylvania chapter too?
Not yet, though these are in a planning phase. US chapters are on hold pending some principal recommendations by the ChapCom and decisions by the board.
Michael
In case it is necessary, I would like to clarify that the board is not currently working on the issue. No proposition on which to discuss has been made. So, it is not on the agenda.
I would love for it to be on the plate, but we need an embryo of a proposition to discuss upon.
Yeah, it's on ChapComs plate, so the board is not to blame for any lack of action, I guess...
Michael
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.
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.
Yeah, that's definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. They're chapter seats, not WMDE seats. There are ways of doing something close to proportional representation without giving a large chapter too much weight (just cap the votes at 40% of the total, or something, would be simplest, more complicated would be some kind of logarithmic apportionment - lots of options to discuss).
I think there ought to be an "Inter-chapter council" with representatives of all the chapters (perhaps with proportional voting, perhaps one-vote per chapter, probably depends mostly on what they're voting on - the main purpose of the council would be coordination, not making binding decisions). Perhaps they could then appoint the board members (so the membership of the chapters elect representatives who elect the board members, cf. US Electoral College). Doing it that way increases the chance of the chapters choosing someone based on qualifications, not nationality. (If it's just done as an open vote, I'm sure people will consider candidates from other countries, but there will always be a bias towards your compatriots. This bias is reduced is there is informed discussion among a small group.)
2008/5/1, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
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.
That very much depends. Say, we are only taking the number of members into account, and 50 members = 1 vote (roundoff to above) then we get:
Agentina (50) - 1 Austria (?) - 1 Australia (?) - 1 Switzerland (64) - 2 Czech Republic (?) - 1 Germany (390) - 8 France (105) - 3 Hong Kong (?) - 1 Israel (12) - 1 Italy (168) - 4 Netherlands (80) - 2 Poland (62) - 2 Serbia (40) - 1 Sweden (116) - 3 Taiwan (30) - 1 United Kingdom (5) - 1
Total: 33
and definitely not two german seats :)
Please note that these data are coming from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters and are generally outdated by months.
A measure by Financial turnover sounds dangerous to me as that would only enthusiast chapters to count everything as money, while the most work is done by volunteers generally. I prefer to think in terms of volunteers and activities over money.
BR, Lodewijk
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:09 PM, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
A measure by Financial turnover sounds dangerous to me as that would only enthusiast chapters to count everything as money, while the most work is done by volunteers generally. I prefer to think in terms of volunteers and activities over money.
I find representation solely based on members or funding quite problematic. The point of chapters is to advance the free sharing of the sum of all knowledge. It's not to recruit members or funds (both not that hard to do with a little dedication) for the sake of influence on the foundation's board. Representation by activities would be interesting although I'm not sure how one would objectively assess and compare the level of activity between chapters. Perhaps a scoring system might be an option that accounts for a multitude of things which would allow chapters to have share of the vote based on how they decide to fulfill their purpose (e.g. fundraising, membership, volunteer hours, cooperations, press management, lawsuits, etc.).
Sebastian
A measure by Financial turnover sounds dangerous to me as that would only enthusiast chapters to count everything as money, while the most work is done by volunteers generally. I prefer to think in terms of volunteers and activities over money.
Good point. I can't think of a reliable way to measure activity, though... turnover, while far from ideal, is at least easy to measure. Some combination of measures would probably be good (every chapters gets 1 vote automatically plus an additional 1 for every X members and 1 for every $Y of turnover).
effe iets anders wrote:
A measure by Financial turnover sounds dangerous to me as that would only enthusiast chapters to count everything as money, while the most work is done by volunteers generally. I prefer to think in terms of volunteers and activities over money.
Another reason to avoid financial measurements here - in some cases, I believe, a chapter may not be able to offer tax deductibility for donations. It seems like it would be unfair to put a chapter at a disadvantage because its local tax laws are different from other places.
--Michael Snow
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Hello,
I created a page on meta, where we can brainstorm about ways the chapters can determine their method for selecting Board seats. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats
This is going to happen, so let us work together to get the best of all ideas.
Thank you for starting the discussion Brianna :-)
Ant
2008/5/1 Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
I find it interesting to consider mixing these up: a) Nominations from the community + votes from the chapters b) Nominations from the chapters + votes from the community
Of course, for "the chapters", there are multiple possibilities - all members? comm members? one 'vote' per chapter? (each chapter has to reach a decision internally) all chapter 'votes' equal? proportional to membership? something else?
Rotation? Each chapter appoints a board member for a fixed term; when that term is up, the next one on the list gets a go.
There may be too many chapters for this to work practically without unreasonably short terms, though.
Rotation? Each chapter appoints a board member for a fixed term; when that term is up, the next one on the list gets a go.
There may be too many chapters for this to work practically without unreasonably short terms, though.
It's an option worth considering. If you rotate by continent (and by chapter within each continent), then everyone is at least roughly represented reasonably often. ie. You start with one of the European chapters and one of the African chapters, you then have a North American chapter and an Asian chapter, then a South American chapter and Oceanic chapter and then different European and African chapters, etc. etc.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org