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.

At this moment there are no sub-national chapters so this notion is academic.

Hoi, Maybe but as far as I know Hong Kong DOES have a separate jurisdiction. Thanks, GerardM

Didn't we just get a Hong Kong chapter?

From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)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.

From: Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)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(a)yahoo.com>om>: <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> Board seats - brainstorming List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> chapters so this chapter in the sense to and has a newly created decent job done. stinks. 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. 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. ____________________________________________________________________________________ http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

From: Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 12:17 PM On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: 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.

Don't we have a Philadelphia or a Pennsylvania chapter too?

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 Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

2008/5/1 effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>om>: 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.

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.

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.