Hats off to SJ for channeling the Federalist Papers; specifically No. 10 (factions)(http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed10.htm) and 51 (checks and balances)( http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed51.htm). [And yes I know they are on Wikisource as well; I just like the frames presentation better.] Principally, the political theory raises interesting points of philosophy, but their direct translation into practice here must be qualified by the reality WMF has to face. That is, there is a board, it is the 'supreme power' under law, and thus the rest of the organizing principles for the Foundation proper are significantly limited. What is *not* limited in the same way is the 'community' or 'projects' per se. That is by design, or at least has been since WMF abandoned membership as a concept for the Foundation itself. Chapters are relevant because they are the result of humans in a particular point in space, surrounded by a particular geographic and political boundary. Virtual citizens, on the other hand, exist within a particular domain/project. This raises fascinating choices - are all projects created equal? Are all languages created equal? Data for the size and growth of projects demonstrate that the answer is clearly no; Wikipedia is the biggest project in all languages; English is the biggest language in all projects. This is well-understood and the subject of much evangelism towards other projects and languages. How then to temper the effects of an EN:WP-centric set of projects and virtual citizens? To tend towards "senate"-like rather than "house"-like forms of representation. Should projects get one vote, irrespective of size? Can language ever be a proxy for organizational structures? I would suggest those thorny problems will not be easily resolved - there is no elegant design which encompasses the virtual citizen to the same degree that the political compromise of a human/voter in a point in space. Which leads us back to chapters. They are constrained by local law, but they have the benefit of being real and encompassing real people irrespective of a computer. Some do not see this as a virtue. I do. I think real people really change the world, especially in areas outside the EN:WP hegemony, and should be given every incentive and aid in organizing. Thus, the chapter "republic" issue. How do you compare Germans with Netherlands with Hong Kong or Poland? One vote each? How should the Americans respond, with a chapter in each state? Can the US game the system no matter what by shear numbers? Should a count of chapter membership be relevant? National population? Per capita participation? Donations? Other statistics? These are all hard questions. But they keep the focus on real people and less virtual identities which are transient and not easily susceptible of capture.