Florence Devouard wrote: It is a chapter. The division indicated by the "sub" in sub-national chapters is in the nation, not necessarily in the chapter. There is no chapter for Wikimedia NYC to be a subchapter of. People are welcome to use Wikimedia US-NYC (or NYC-US, it doesn't matter to me) where the designation of sub-national chapter is important, though. I believe I shared the FAQ on this list earlier, but I've taken a copy and put it on Meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters --Michael Snow

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Florence Devouard wrote: I fail to see the distinction. A sub-national chapter and a national chapter are both still full chapters; as opposed to something which would be considered a sub-chapter--which would be completely different. I don't see how the Board has to rephrase anything. Cary

How about we just close this thread. We do not need to rehash the debate, it is a dead horse. ________________________________ From: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:59:39 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters) Florence and Gerard, Could you perhaps not insist on using the non-existent term "sub-chapters"? If we're going to rehash the ages old discussion on US chapters and "what does a chapter do" and "Why does the US need this" and other such dead horses, it'd be nice if we all used the proper terminology. Thanks. -Dan On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Cary Bass <cary(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: -- Dan Rosenthal _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Florence Devouard wrote: I'm confused by your description of chapters as a tool for "having rights" or "having roles". I'm also skeptic to the chapters voting for board members of the foundation. That is a privilege that I never asked for. (This is just my personal view.) For me, a chapter is a tool to achieve things locally that I can't achieve as an individual Wikipedia contributor (because they require cooperation and money), and which the central organization of the Foundation wouldn't do in my local area (because they are local), such as organizing the Wikipedia Academy. That's all a chapter is to me. And for this, both Wikimedia Sverige and Wikimedia New York City seem to be of the appropriate size. Coming from a small European country, I also fear that if Europeans insist that the U.S. should only have a single nation-wide chapter, some Americans might insist that the European Union should only be allowed one single chapter. I wouldn't like that. And I will protest against any plan to formalize the bond between European chapters. I want each chapter to communicate directly with the Foundation, instead of going through some EU level intermediary. Again, this is my personal view. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

Michael Snow wrote: We know that chapters hold different roles, but most of these roles focus around * collecting money which may be used for the projects good * informing the public about the projects, open source, free knowledge etc... * being a public face whenever it is necessary, in particular in front of the press, public institutions, governments These roles could be held by simple individuals, but it would be much tougher. Can you imagine yourself, as an independant person, raising money for the projects, collecting the money on your bank account and then shipping the money to the USA ? I guess not. By and large, the role of the chapters is simply to provide a framework, a squelettum, to make it easier for wikimedians to *do things* that they can not easily do as individuals. That may go from "having a bank account to raise money" to "providing semi-business cards making it easier to talk to museum directors" or "providing a room to hold a photo-workshop" or "bringing leaflets to a conference". Note that in my mind, the chapters do not restrict the plateform to their members. The members of the chapters run the plateform. But the plateform may be used by a much larger membership. As such, the activity of the chapter benefit a very large community and not only its legal membership. --> The main role is of being a facilitating plateform. The main right of the chapter is the one of using the brand (such as having the right to be called Wikimedia xxx, a sign of recognition that we belong to the family). And forgive me if I dare a biological comparison. Do you know that your body hosts millions, if not billions of bacteria ? At first glance, these bacteria are not very useful. Then, if you look more carefully, some of these bacterias play very important direct roles, such as in digestion. In other cases, in particular for microorganisms living on your skin, it is really not obvious what those are useful for. But after further considerations, you will realize that the role of those is simply... to be there. To occupy the place. And prevent other microorganisms, nasty ones, from colonizing the place. My argument would be that the chapters second the Foundation in protecting the brand ... in making sure that it is used for "positive" reasons (going in the direction of our commonly agreed vision), and making sure it is NOT used for wrong directions. Straight example: Wikimedia France owns and protect "wikipedia.fr". Wikimedia Russia could own wikipedia.ru (which is for sale) If Wikimedia Spain existed, it could have protected the domain and avoided that: http://wikipedia.es/ Locally, simply by existing, and by being a focus, institutions will come to chapters rather to going to random wikipedians. And by going to a group clearly identified and unified by a clear mission and shared values, institutions will hear about this mission and these values. When no local focus exist, and WMF is so far away, across the globe, sharks gather and act in way which do not reflect what we desire our projects to be. As such, I would consider that... The second main role of the chapter is to protect what can and need to be protected, such as our logo, our name, our licence, our mission, our values, our dream. I believe participating to electing our WMF trustees participate to this role of protection (but this might not be commonly agreed). Ant

Austin Hair wrote: Speaking only for myself as one board member among many, I agree with Austin completely. There can be "subnational chapters" - meaning that the chapter is concentrated on a region smaller than a nation-state, but they are not 'sub-chapters'. The New York City metropolitan area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area has 18.8 million people. This is slightly larger than the Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands at 16.4 million. The world is not necessarily carved up geopolitically in a manner that would make it at all make sense to declare one nation/one chapter. It's a subtle matter with many factors that have to be thoughtfully balanced. --Jimbo

Hoi, When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA legal system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things like charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no real need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society. When a "chapter" like New York is allowed then there is in essence nothing to have another "sub chapter "in another country.. In the end when it is all about community and community activity, an Amsterdam chapter is as valid as a Dutch chapter right ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia-inc.com>

Hoi, So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de>

Hoi, What I said was that the NY chapter prevents an USA chapter. It would be obvious to have one such. With one in place, you can organise to your hearts content wherever you like. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com>

2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>om>: 3) The various sub-national USA chapters could form a union/federation of chapters. They remain independent chapters, but have a structure in place to enable them to work together effectively.

2009/1/20 Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>om>: It does seem odd to me that there is a New York City chapter rather than a New York chapter. As I understand it, companies in the US are registered at state level. State boundaries are far more clearly defined (yes, I'm sure there is a legal definition of NYC, but it doesn't sound like the chapter are using it). The state of New York isn't overly large compared with the area under the remit of other existing chapters. So why doesn't this chapter represent the whole of the state? I really can't see any reason for it not to.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: 5 Friends and their dog cannot make a chapter. To become a chapter, you need to have critical mass: You need enough people to form a board, you need possible members. You need to be able to raise money, and you need to be able to perform activities. If we have a situation where there are enough Wikimedians in Scramento, Los Angeles, and San Jose to each form chapters, we should consider ourselves to be very lucky. More likely, to build the critical mass necessary to start a new chapter, Wikimedians from all these places may need to work together instead of working apart. The smaller the geographical area is, the fewer potential members you have, the less money you are likely to be able to raise, and the fewer outreach activities you will have available to you. --Andrew Whitworth

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: So it's a problem if a chapters geographical area is "strange"? Or maybe the biggest concern is that a chapter may be named in such a way that's confusing to non-members? If these are our biggest problems concerning the hypothetical development of subnational chapters, then I am relieved. If we are lucky enough to have 4 active chapters in the south east region of the USA, then this is quite a good problem to have! --Andrew Whitworth

A chapter is a sub-division of an organisation. I'm not sure it's really the best word to describe our "chapters", since they are very much independent. They are more local affiliates than chapters. "Local" in English just means related to a certain geographical area, the definition does not specify the size of that area. It is usually clear from context - it can refer to anything from a village to the Local Group, the collection of galaxies that the Milky Way is part of.

Ziko van Dijk wrote: It's the same word as the German "Kapitel" as used by the (Roman Catholic) church (Domkapitel, Stiftskapitel). It represents a regional subdivision of a large organization (or a portion of a book). The word "chapter" is used in many international organizations such as IEEE, ISOC and (I think) the Red Cross. Many of these have chapters for each country in Europe and for each corner of the United States. That is precisely the model the Wikimedia Foundation has now adopted. Read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter or http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapitel -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: 5 people is not critical mass, and I cannot imagine that the chapcom would approve a potential chapter that has only 5 members. 5 people can do many wonderful things, but that does not make them a chapter. This is all blatantly false. What "abilities" and "responsibilities" are not available to WMNYC that our other national-level chapters have? Besides the fact that the WMF itself is based on the USA and therefore is more able to enter into business agreements with companies here then in other countries, I see no limitation on this or any other subnational chapter. Do not assume that this group is at any disadvantage compared to our other national chapters. In fact, this chapter is in BETTER shape then some of our national chapters are, having already sponsored a number of outreach projects, creating working relationships with other organizations, and soliciting high-profile donations from museums and other content repositories. We have national chapters that have not had as much activity in the last year that WMNYC has had in the last two months. WMNYC does not need to impress you, and does not need your approval Gerard. Their success will be measured in volunteers, donation dollars, and media contributed to our projects. What "national concerns" do you expect that they will not be able to address? Our "sub-national" nomenclature indicates only that they are smaller in size then the country that contains them, nothing more. If I called them a "super-municipal chapter" or a "regional chapter", would your opinion of them improve? If I called our current chapters "sub-global" or "sub-continental", would that change your opinion of them too? --Andrew Whitworth

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: You have not raised any issues, only vague and unsupported statements about the inferiority of the chapter, or it's inability to perform certain activities. This chapter is at no disadvantage, and has no "issues" that all our other chapters do not have as well. If I have no addressed these "issues" you mention, it is because they do not exist. --Andrew Whitworth

Hoi, I doubt that the NYC has the ability to negotiate commercial deals for the whole of the USA. Also given that the organisation of the Foundation has already made sure that a US citizen can give tax free to the WMF, there is no need for the NYC to arrange this, I am sure there are more things that are similar. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>

Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that Wikimedia needs an American chapter to fulfill chapter functions nationwide, and that the NYC chapter is subpar because it will not? What you've been asked is to use the accurate name of the chapter type rather than one that is inaccurately descriptive. You may believe that there are deficiencies in the notion of a sub-national chapter that earn it the "sub-chapter" description, but I think its rather insulting of you to insist on using it when its been made clear that its initial use was a misunderstanding. By a similar token, should we insist on calling not very active or useful national chapters something like "mal-chapters" or "dead weight chapters" in regular conversation? I don't think so. The New York chapter does not appear to be limited in any functional way - it can perform all the functions of any normal chapter, it has merely determined a specific geographic region in which to pursue those functions. Why this makes it any less of a chapter than some other specific geographically restricted chapter that happens to coincide with national political borders I don't fully understand. Can you expand on that, please? Of course, the chapter has already been created and recognized and going forward it will be the membership of the chapter of New York City that is responsible for its role and functioning, not the members of this list. Nathan On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Could you rephrase this? I've re-read it about 5-6 times and your wording still isn't parsing for me. -Chad

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote: He's not saying that it makes other subnational US chapters unnecessary, but that it makes a national US chapter (or, for that sake, a New York State chapter or a northeastern US chapter) impossible. -- André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de> wrote: Well, there are two organizations, but one of them is a chapter, having mostly wikimedians as its members, organizing a meeting every now and again, the other is not a chapter, is completely inactive, has no possibility of having members and is opposed by a large part, possibly the majority of the community. -- André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com

I was wondering myself. I thought this information would be in the FAQ, but it is not. Two questions. First, the annual meeting. We hold an annual meeting between all chapters and WMF. Already, because of the number of chapters, it is recommanded that only one representant of all chapters come to the meeting. Needless to say, this limitation is going to largely damage the ability of this meeting to build anything. Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ? If that's the case, I suspect that we will soon have to abandon this annual meeting altogether, and will have to replace it by "region" meetings. Second, elections to board of trustees of WMF. WMF has given the opportunity to chapters to elect two members to the board. However, it is not clear to me if subchapters will be included or not. Has this been decided ? Or will chapters be offered the opportunity to decide that by themselves ? Ant Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Guillaume Paumier wrote: Sorry. There are two arguments in my sentence. Which one do you want support for ? The argument that there will be only one representant is something I think I read that in one of your document. I may be wrong. I can look for the information if necessary. But I understood number of representants will be strongly limited. Or the fact one representant will damage the ability of the meeting to build anything ? Well, yeah, pretty simple. First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less. Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures. But every year will become more and more difficult. How many people will join this year Guillom ? Second, one person may speak in the name of its board on issues they have discussed previously. Far less on new discussions. And at the end of the discussion, the representant may not "vote" because legally speaking, only the entire board can take a decision. Which means that the meeting may be an opportunity to "meet" and exchange experiences. But it may not be an opportunity to reach agreements. If any doubt on this, a show case is the procedure chosen to select the two representants to the board. One procedure was identified by the group at last year chapter meeting. But we are doing another procedure because in the end, most did not agree with the procedure identified during the meeting. Not to say it was a loss of time of course, but the meeting can simply not be used as a decision-making time. Walking on eggs, I will also point out that not all chapters always send the most appropriate person to this meeting. When two or three people can come, the chosen people will usually be the chair and the "one person doing a lot of work at international level and with many relationships with many chapters". When only one person come, I think in many cases, the chair will be selected, as representant of the chapters. And I think this person is not necessarily the best choice. In the future, we'll have to decide whether we want this annual meeting to be a "small" one, with max one representative (in which case, it will mostly be a "sharing experiences" time). Or if we want more a convention, with open membership (in which case, it will mostly be a "agreement reaching time").

Sebastian Moleski wrote: This should be checked by a lawyer, but imho, that's not correct, at least in France. Of course, this would depend on which types of decisions. If the decisions were completely operational and if the chapter has an ED, and if the decision is within the range of the strategy defined by the board, it's entirely okay that the ED makes the decision. However, in most other cases, I do not think that's okay. The responsability of the organisation is in the hands of the entire board. Not one member. Even if the member receives the delegation to *vote* at the meeting, I believe the decision can be cancelled afterwards if the board is not in agreement. Sorry, I meant "open membership" but within the board pool (and probably ED pool :-)). If 5/9 board members are present at the meeting, they constitute a quorum and their decision is *legal*. Of course, the chapter may have one or two votes within the entire group. Ant

Sebastian Moleski wrote: Correct. Which is fine as long as no decision is made during the general meeting with all chapters... :-( LOL. Is that fair that some participants are fluent with English and others are not ? Is that fair that some participants have a loud voice and others a weak one that can not float over the general noise ? Is that fair that some participants are easy and outgoing, whilst others are rather discreet and shy ? Is that fair that a very well developped chapter has only one voice to elect a member whilst a brand new little chapter also has one ? There is no fairness in the world Seb, only an approach of fairness :-)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:41, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I an not sure we need a lawyer here. Even in France :) The Board (in a French association) has been mandated by the General Assembly to make the decisions concerning the association. As such, it is totally in the realm of its power to delegate someone to "represent" the association at a meeting and even "make decisions" on its behalf. The only thing being, if the person makes a decision that the board is not ready to support, then the board has to live with it and be accountable in the next General Assembly. As I pointed out, I think it's more of a cultural issue than a legal one. :) Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :) On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:22, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sebastian wrote: I don't agree much on the "efficiency" of a "conference" over a "meeting". I think they are two very different ways of people getting together. Which does not make one better than the other, they are just very different things. Florence wrote: Sebastian wrote: [snip] 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. 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.). To try and rephrase Florence's concerns expressed at the beginning, which were some of mine when we debated Wikimedia NYC in the chapters committee, let us try with and example. Today, it is great that Wikimedia has Wikimedia NYC, because it gives a great frame for people in metropolitan areas of the US to be active in a positive and helping way. My thought, however, is that it opens the door, to a potential of XX (hear many) US-based chapters, (as well as XX India-based chapters or XX-whatever-country-where-it-makes-perfect-sense-to-have-sub-national-chapters) to have a heavy (or even majority) representation of one country/culture(or approaching culture) within the "chapters body", if there is such a thing. 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). 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 ;-) Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

[OT] On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 13:34, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol(a)gmail.com> wrote: For Germans, power distance [1] [2] is small, which means, for example, that it's easy for the employees to go to their boss and talk about things and make decisions on their own, it makes delegation easier. For the French, power distance is big, which means hierarchy is much stronger, and chain of command is more important, which makes delegation harder. Of course, there are millions of other factors coming into play at any given time. But I thought it was interesting to see yours and Florence's reaction on this. Delphine [1] http://www.geert-hofstede.com/ (scroll down the page) [2] and for a little self promotion: http://blog.notanendive.org/post/2008/07/25/Distance-to-power-somewhere-in-… -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

Florence Devouard wrote: There are no sub-chapters. The proper term is "sub-national chapters". And they are chapters as much as any other chapter. --Jimbo

Hoi, The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between Belgium and the Netherlands. There is no Belgium chapter and given their politics it is unlikely that there will be one. The projects in the Dutch language include many Belgians and they are welcome to become a member of the Dutch "vereniging". Ting, it is nice that you do not see what countries have to do with chapters. One of the main points of chapters is that they represent the Wikimedia Foundation in a limited fashion and, that they take care of issues that need to be taken care off on a local level. They are things like fundraising and looking for a tax exempt status for gifts etc. When a chapter is nothing but a society, there is less need for an official connection with the WMF. The people in New York can have their own society, there is no need for them being a chapter and take care by necessity of these needs. If you say that a chapter is only a society and that this is all that counts, I do not understand why it is not permitted to have chapters covering the same space. Why not have an Amsterdam chapter if the people from Amsterdam think it a good idea ?? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de>

Hoi, So the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is possible commercial nastiness ???? Does the NYC have a license to negotiate as much as another USA (sub)-chapter have. What is left for the Wikimedia Foundation itself ? How do you make commercial organisations split along "our" lines ? As I learn more about chapters, I come to my conclusion that they are a confused hodgepodge of conflicting ideas. The notion what the essence of a chapter is is no longer clear at all. I would really LOVE some clear structured text that explains the notion of the chapter and explains what its responsibilities are. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de>

Hoi, When the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is because of a fear that a commercial organisation plays one chapter against another, I fail to agree that this is a good reason. Obviously chapters are involved in such negotiations, that is not the point. I am quite ok with chapters being different. What I fail to understand is what it is that chapters are expected to do. Let me sketch a scenario. A Dutch group wants their chapter only to be a society while another group wants to organise things engage in dialogue with archives, musea. These two visions are worlds apart. When you are unlucky you end up with a fight. When both groups can do their thing, there is no need for this. When the WMF prohibits two organisations, it will be a recurring fight. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de>

Florence Devouard wrote: Hi Ant, yes, this is also very unconvenient for the foundation and this is the reason why the board want to talk to the chapter about the growth and maturity of the chapters. If we can help, we would like to help. We want that all chapters can do agreements and the foundations don't need to do them in these areas. We also hope that the chapters can talk with the museums and archives and organize academies and so on. We would like to see the chapters more active. Ting

Gerard Meijssen wrote: Yes Gerard you are completely right. I was just going to answer your other mail. This is the reason why we check the bylaws, to see that they are in accordance with the goal and vision of the fundation. Greetings Ting

2009/1/20 Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de>de>: It was my understanding from the sub-national chapters document that such chapters might be permitted to form anyway: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters (Question: "Aren't we setting up sub-national chapters to compete for funding with nation-based chapters?") What I'm taking your statement to mean is that when a subnational chapter is formed where a national chapter could be later formed, the overlap and potential harmful consequences of such overlap would have to be carefully considered before national chapter is approved. Would that be a fair characterization? Or are you meaning 'is not possible' truly in the sense of 'will never happen'? -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

Nathan, a sub national chapter does not preclude a national chapter. I am unable to foresee a national chapter in places where we are implementing sub national chapters, making this a moot point. ________________________________ From: Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:07:01 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters) On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Earlier in this thread, Ting clearly stated that recognition of a sub-national chapter meant a national chapter could not later be formed. Andrew Whitworth indicated the same. Is that not the definitive answer to the question? Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:13 AM, Florence Devouard wrote: I agree with your concern here Florence, but I don't see anything saying that national chapters cannot form if there is a sub national chapter there. I don't quite know where Ting extrapolates "chapters should have well defined geographical areas and they should not overlap" into "If we have a sub national chapter, we cannot have a parent national chapter"; it sounds like a misreading of "Should not" into "Must not". I can think of several good reasons why sub-national chapters should not preclude a national chapter; not the least of which being the concerns raised by Florence, but also situations in places such as China where subnational chapters in one area of the country may not adequately represent the rest of the country. Was this some sort of unilateral proclamation by Ting, or has the chapters committee officially made some sort of decision on this topic? -Dan

Dan Rosenthal wrote: This is my conclusion out of the "no overlapping areas" criteria. I may be wrong. I don't think that the concern of Florence is really a serious one. In many countries, for example Agentina, where we already have a chapter, a few cities are the absolute cultural center of the country, but in these cases there's no sense to constrain a chapter only in the cities. They can easily be established as national chapters, like Agentina. Another example is NYC is not constrained in the city, but has its area including the whole state. At the moment we have no cases where we have conflicts here, and I see no situation, which cannot be negotiated by one way or the other. Last but not least, if there are indeed grave conflicts and it is unsoluble according to the current rule, I don't see that rules are unchangable. We have come so far and have solved so much problems I don't think that we would one day die on this problem. Greetings Ting

Andrew Whitworth wrote: What I consider the most plausible case is existing sub-national chapters joining to form a national one. Perhaps at some point a Wikimedia Texas, Wikimedia Chicago, and Wikimedia New York might decide there is a benefit to organizing Wikimedia US, in which case I expect the "careful consideration and agreement" would apply. On the other hand, if there's an effort to create Wikimedia US because of a schism within Wikimedia Texas, that's not what we're looking for. As for potential overlap, mostly I'd be concerned that chapters not insist on maintaining "claims" to territory they can't effectively serve. If a chapter based in New York City manages to cover the entire state and region, we might eventually call it something like Wikimedia Northeast US instead. If it can't do that, then it should not make itself an obstacle to creating a Wikimedia Boston or Philadelphia when the time comes. --Michael Snow

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com> wrote: New York City is a city, and France or Germany are nations. In the geopolitical sense, the two are very different. However, in terms of chapters the geopolitical boundaries are meaningless. Chapters are defined and measured by their levels of participation. We don't say that a nation must always be "better" then a city, we say that one wikimedian is equal to one wikimedian. A Wikimedian in WMNYC who pays dues and participates is equal to a Wikimedian in Wikimedia France who pays dues and participates. To say that one group of our volunteers should be discounted because they represent a smaller area is not a good thing. Subnational chapters allow wikimedians to organize in ways that are suitable for them, and allow them to participate equally. Chapters are chapters, Wikimedians are Wikimedians, and we should not be drawing lines between them, or ranking their relative "importance". This is a slightly different issue. Subnational chapters are entirely contained in a single country and therefore have a unified legal system to operate under. Transnational chapters do not, and can run into problems from the simple operation of transporting donated money from a member to headquarters, or bringing members to meetings. I don't want to say that a trans-national chapter should not be a possibility if it was the correct course to take, but it certainly is a very different situation from a subnational chapter. We shouldn't deny a chapter to any group who is willing to do the organizational work and who are interested in participating in Wikimedia. At the moment the only rules we have are: 1) Chapters cannot overlap 2) Chapters should not cross national boundaries 3) Chapters must have a well-defined geographical area Any group who satisfies these basic requirements, is active, and is willing to do the organizational work that's required should be allowed to form a chapter. The goal of having chapters in the first place is to help Wikimedians be empowered and get involved. We do not use chapters as a tool to elevate some Wikimedians and hold back others. NYC does clearly define it's borders: New York State, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. These are written in it's bylaws. We do not allow overlapping chapters, so if a group of Wikimedians in Philadelphia wanted to create a separate chapter right now they would not be allowed to. By that same token, Wikimedians in Sicily would not be allowed to create a separate chapter from Wikimedia Italia. I'm also not sure I understand the last part of the question, what do you mean by "knocks on the door of the WMF..."? This is a very common issue, and it's up to the Wikimedians in Belgium to decide the best way for them to organize. We should not be dictating to them who they must work with, who they must interact with, or where they must participate. Belgians can decide for themselves how to proceed. If there is not enough support to create a national chapter, then one will not be created in Belgium. There is no demanding, chapters cannot currently overlap. This doesn't mean that the Russian speakers in Estonia have no recourse: The Estonia chapter may decide to create a "Section" or a "Regional Committee" to support their fellow Wikimedians. The Estonian chapter could modify it's geographical area to allow a non-overlapping chapter to be created. Or maybe the various Estonians could try harder to ignore their linguistic differences and work together. Any system we use is going to be inherently unfair and will marginalize at least one group of Wikimedians. If the France chapter has 100 active members who 1000 dollars, and the NYC chapter has 5000 members and raises 500000 dollars, should the two chapters have the same number of votes? Should France have more votes because it is a nation, even though it has fewer active members? If France has 100 members, and the US has 10 Chapters each with 10 members, should the two groups have the same total number of votes? If France has 100 members and the US has 10 Chapters each with 100 members, should the US have 10 times more votes then France? We don't just give more votes to nations then we give to sub-nations, because then subnational chapters that are large and successful will be marginalized. Also, small and dysfunctional national chapters will have more importance then large and powerful subnational ones. If we apportion votes based on chapter membership, we marginalize smaller ethnic groups and run the risk that the WMF will be dominated by English-speaking people. Sheer numbers are not the problem, we could be so lucky as to have "too many" chapters, each raising money and making donations to the WMF, getting more people involved, raising awareness, and improving our projects. "Too many" really doesn't seem like a problem at all. And if there never is a US chapter, Americans can be safely held down as second-class Wikimedians forever? People in other countries who are having trouble organizing at the national level like India and Canada, they also get to be second-class Wikimedians forever? Sure sounds like a lousy solution to me. --Andrew Whitworth

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: My only suggestion is that the situation is very complicated, and we cannot always say that national chapters must be more important then sub-national chapters. It's entirely conceivable that WMNYC will have more active members then some national chapters do, so why should it be counted less? Some chapters might be very large and successful, so maybe they should be weighted more. There is no way to make the system completely fair, for reasons you suggest and for others entirely. However, that doesn't mean we should draw a line in the sand and say "Wikimedians on this side of the line are more important then Wikimedians on the other side are". I would hate to see Wikimedia Chapters used as a vehicle to disenfranchise certain groups when it comes to global educational initiatives. --Andrew Whitworth

Hoi, At some stage you get used to it. Some people call the "language committee" the "language sub-committee". This while the committee it should be a sub off does not even exist any more. While I do think that the New York sub chapter will do great things and will even do better then some chapters, it does not represent a country. It will not negotiate national commercial deals ... or will it ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>

Andrew Whitworth wrote: There is one more thing that is important however, and this is what laws does the chapter operate under. These are different from country to country, from US state to US state, and even on a local level. In Serbia, some municipalities offer donations to NGOs stationed in them, and we were considering moving WMRS seat to a richer municipality. Obviously, it would be even better if we could have one subchapter stationed in every municipality ;)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: This is a good question, but maybe the better one is "is there any incentive for a chapter to be defined over a larger geographical area as opposed to a smaller one?" Would WMNYC have any kinds of benefits if it had declared itself to be WMUS instead? I think the answer is "no". In this case, WMNYC is a community-oriented chapter that defines itself primarily through it's outreach activites. Even if it accepted members from California, those members wouldn't be able to participate in any of WMNYCs activities. Distance can create a huge barrier to entry. Being larger may mean you can accept more applications, but not all of those members will be able to fully-participate. I'm in Philadelphia, and even though I'm not too far away I still find that I can't participate in many activities because of the distance. This may mean, in the future, that I need to pursue a different venue for participation, either through the creation of a local section of the larger chapter, or splitting away and forming a new chapter entirely (and the mechanisms for that course of action are as yet unclear, if they are even possible). I would say that there is no benefit in defining an area larger then the chapter can reasonably support. If you cannot accept, manage, and involve members from your entire geographical area in a reasonable way, then your stated area is not an accurate depiction of your region of influence. Chapters that claim to support a larger area then they can reasonably handle create a detrimental situation: Potential members in outlying areas are disenfranchised and have no recourse to form their own separate chapter if they need to. Chapters should only form on the national-level if they have nation-wide volunteer interest, activity, and support. We should be hesitant to accept national chapters who cannot support membership from their entire area, or national chapters composed entirely of volunteers from a small population center. In many cases, subnational chapters should be the preferred way of organizing because it's a more realistic use of volunteer capabilities. --Andrew Whitworth

Ziko van Dijk wrote: Hello Ziko, I think this is the wrong way to consider the chapters. The first sub-national chapter that we have is indeed Hongkong. Hongkong is undisputed a part of China, so it is a sub-national chapter and it is in no way an american sub-national chapter. And no, the foundation definitively don't want to be an american chapter. Thing is more praktical: If the new yorker wikimedians have the ability to organize themselves but there's no ability to organize an allamerican chapter, why should we lay stones on their way and prevent them doing so. And as in my reply to Gerard, if the community want, I really don't see problem why the netherland chapter should or could not also incoporate part of Belgium. If it can do good for the people, why not? I really don't consider the chapters as nations or countries. If say people from Taiwan and from mainland China can work together peacefully and constructive on the same project, why should we constraint ourselves in concepts like national state and boundaries in matter of chapters. The problem with an esperanto chapter is mainly I think because one cannot define a clear geographical boundary for it. By the way I am reading your book about the International Esperanto Conference. I see a lot of parallels from them and us (for example the definition of neutrality, internationality and so on). I find it very very interesting. Thank you very much for the book. And do you think that the Esperanto community would organize strictly in national chapters if they start today, and not more than hundred years ago? Ting

Hoi, The city of Moscow would be refused a chapter. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>

Hoi, These "emotional" arguments are not practical. In my opinion there is a need for a USA chapter because there are things that the Office should not handle and that should be handled by an USA chapter. The NYC is likely to be as active as any other chapter. My issue is not with their activities, I welcome them. My issue is that certain things need to be addressed on a National level and this is NOT what the NYC is best placed to do, they are largely handled by the office at the moment and this is imho not good. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/21 Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se>

Thanks again for your explanations (I don't want to open a new mail for every bit). Some points: * Of the organizations Lars mentioned, only ISOC has "chapters". I still find it not clear about whether the national organizations are independent or merely national agencies of the center (as it is the case with Greenpeace). * In this discussion, it is irrelevant how many people live in a sub national area, or how large the country is (there are chapters in small and in large countries already). * It is also irrelevant whether individuals choose to be member in a chapter that does not belong to the nation state they live in, like nationals of France living abroad (as Florence has explained well), or Belgians who go to the Dutch chapter as long as they don't have own of their own. * It is irrelevant whether the New Yorkers do a good job (I never doubted that). The Wikimedians of Cologne do a good job aswell, but they are no chapter. * If the Wikimedians in the USA did not manage to create a national chapter, it is not my fault. Why can't there be a Wikimedia US? I don't know the reason: Large and ethnically diverse countries have WM chapters, other movements have US chapters... * Hongkong and Taiwan are special cases; not "nations" or "countries" different to PR China, but different "states" or "systems". * "Sub national chapters" in the US states make WMF the default Wikimedia US, dealing with American institutions and personalities in a way usually a chapter would. American Wikimedians have no reason to take effort for a WMUS if they see this and that they can have US states chapters. * The world is divided into countries, like it or not, and this has consequences for us. Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde

2009/1/21 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>om>: If the US sub-national chapters were clearly done along state lines, that argument would work, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com> wrote: IEEE uses the term "Sections", to basically describe the same construct. However, IEEE sections are arranged in a way that even we might find strange: They have several chapters in the US alone, and one chapter that covers all of Africa, Asia, and Oceania. The reasons for this are the number and distribution of electrical engineers. Some chapters do stipulate in their bylaws that to become a member you must "live or work" in the chapter's geographic area. I don't know how common it is amongst our existing chapters, but I have seen it on more then one occasion. Organizers decide what is best for themselves. If organizers in the USA think it's better to create community-oriented groups, that is their prerogative. It is not you who decides if there will be a Wikimedia US, and it is not me who decides it either: The organizers decide that, and they have decided to pursue locally-based chapters instead of a nationally-based one. There is no "fault" because there is no problem. This is perhaps a factor, but then how do you explain situations like Canada and India where organizers have tried unsuccessfully to create a national chapter and are now pursuing sub-national ones instead? And countries are divided into states and provinces and municipalities, like it or not, and this has consequences for us. --Andrew Whitworth