[Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So far a chapter was created per jurisdiction; as the law of the Netherlands
is different from the law in Germany it is best to have one organisation set
up in this way if you want to make use of tax deduction and the like.

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.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2008/5/1 effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com>:
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>