[Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro at gmail.com
Mon Apr 28 06:15:58 UTC 2008

Michael Snow wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> I have an idle thought. If there are to be seats elected by
>> a limited circle of projects with chapters, would not the
>> easiest manner of balancing things be that people from
>> projects with chapters not be able to vote in the other
>> elections from the community. In this fashion the so called
>> "community" seats would be transformed into "chapterless
>> community seats".
>> Note that this proposal has the virtue that this would not
>> disenfranchise nearly all the _individuals_ who contribute
>> to projects with chapters, as many of them contribute in
>> multiple languages, and thus may have an voting-eligble
>> account in a smaller language without chapter.
> I would be cautious about tying projects to chapters, considering that 
> they do not map to each other at all exactly. So unless I misunderstand 
> your proposal, I think the consequences for individual participation are 
> more drastic than you seem to believe. You suggest people might have 
> accounts on other projects, but it seems like this would 
> "disenfranchise" everyone who contributes to the Spanish projects, all 
> because a chapter has been formed in Argentina.
> I'd be more inclined to take the idea and turn it completely around. In 
> the context of chapters selecting board members, I think it's worth 
> considering having an "at-large chapter" for people to participate in if 
> they don't have one available in their jurisdiction. Since it already 
> puts us in a situation where we have to think outside the standard mold 
> of what is a chapter, because we need to create something for the US 
> among others, a virtual chapter could be considered. A "chapter" for 
> board selection purposes need not be a "chapter" in the sense of an 
> incorporated nonprofit entity with tax deductibility for donations and 
> the ability to make formal agreements. Maybe this would also help some 
> of the places where people have expressed concerns about the wisdom of 
> actually forming associations - I vaguely recall Japan might have that 
> issue, for example.

Well, in the past this approach has met with "mixed" support.

I point you towards:


That said...

I do think your refutation of my (not entirely serious)
suggestion is valid. The mapping is indeed untenable in
the sense of such a mechanistic application expressed
in my light-hearted suggestion.

Curiously we are now in the process of brainstorming
after the fact, rather than preliminary to the initial
decision being taken.

Yours in Wikimedia;

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro

More information about the foundation-l mailing list