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

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the contrary, I think that the issue of how chapters are structured
>  between states and countries is a critical issue.
>
>  -Dan
>
>
> On May 3, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
>
>  > On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
>  > wrote:
>  >
>  >>
>  >> Hm. It is a wrong way for arguing for state-level chapters in USA.
>  >> Free State Bavaria is, for example, much more independent entity than
>  >> any of US states. And there are a number of similar examples in
>  >> Europe.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Could we please remain within the scope of the question here, namely
>  > on what
>  > basis to structure chapters and what factors influence that? The
>  > intricate
>  > (quite political) details of what level of sovereignty a country,
>  > state,
>  > province, or whatever has hold little to no relevance for this
>  > question.

I wanted to say that a level of independence is often less important
than some other issues. If the goal is to build a functional
organization, then we should think about aspects which are
particularly important in some cases. In the case of US (and other big
countries) there is much more important problem than a level of
regional autonomy: the distance. Because of that, I may imagine that
WM New England would be a functional organization, while I am not sure
that WM California would be.