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

[Milos Rancic]

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.

Proportional chapter seats would mean 2 Board members from WM DE :) --
which leads us to the same situation like we have with en.wp at the
project level. BTW, while I would like to see some WM DE members into
the Board, I would like to see in the Board people from some other
chapters, too. I think that better idea is to find the best possible
people from the chapters by reaching consensus in inter chapter
coordination. And I am very sure that chapters are able to make the
best possible choices.