On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma <jrgoma(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor > Kosovo independence.

Very true, but allowing separate Kosovan and Sebian chapters (which is probably best for the WM movement, since the Serbian chapter presumably can't operate effective runs the risk of appearing to promote Kosovan independance. I would love it if we could stay out of the dispute entirely, but it isn't easy to do.

On 28 September 2010 12:40, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: nor Well, we already have four (or is it five?) Wikipedias for the one language in the area. We've already dived right in.

- d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

guys, please! Lets not try to solve hypothetical problems here until we know what the problem will be! Let the folks see if they can get people together in the first place, what they want to do, and what in their opinion would be the best way to organize that. THEN we can see if a chapter has to be approved or not.

That would only be the case if we would have sufficient information to actually make a decision and this would be the actual body making such decision in the first place. Some very important indicators are still missing. We dont know who the group is, what they want to do, what they need, how many they are, whether wikimedians are involved in the first place, what their goals would be, not even to speak about their proposed bylaws. You suggest that only being a chapter is a potential success outcome. Of course that is not the case. Thinking about who you are, where you are, where you want to go, what you want to do and what you need to get there is never wasted, especially since there are many ways that lead to Rome. Even if the conclusion would be that they want to form a chapter, and that would be rejected (highly hypothetical) that effort would be well spent because you could use it to persue your goals in another way. Being a chapter is a tool, not a goal. Please note that the only indication that they want to form a chapter is not a notice from themselves, is not a request, but only a hypothetical question from someone who visited a conference. Really, if you want to make a real consideration whether it would be a good idea, you need much more information than you have right now, and the regular process through chapcom is probably much more effective to evaluate such information than through this mailing list. Best, Lodewijk 2010/9/29 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: would _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gerard; if New York got to be a Chapter (or a SubChapter for what it matters) then Kosovo can definitely be one as well. The question of whether it would end up being an independent chapter, or a SubChapter of Serbia, or potentially Albania if it ever exists,

That would only be the case if we would have sufficient information to actually make a decision and this would be the actual body making such decision in the first place. Some very important indicators are still missing. We dont know who the group is, what they want to do, what they need, how many they are, whether wikimedians are involved in the first place, what their goals would be, not even to speak about their proposed bylaws.

You suggest that only being a chapter is a potential success outcome. Of course that is not the case. Thinking about who you are, where you are, where you want to go, what you want to do and what you need to get there is never wasted, especially since there are many ways that lead to Rome. Even if the conclusion would be that they want to form a chapter, and that would be rejected (highly hypothetical) that effort would be well spent because you could use it to persue your goals in another way. Being a chapter is a tool, not a goal.