[Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Thomas Dalton]

> Ting ruled out the existence of an USA chapter because of the existence of
> the New York chapter. It is equally clear that the WMF organisation does not
> want to fulfill the role of an USA chapter. When Dan asks me and Anthere not
> to use the "sub-chapter" word, he is right in that the board names them a
> chapter, but the issue of the New York chapter having fewer abilities and
> responsibilities is conveniently swept under the carpet in this way.
>
> The prefix sub indicates that it is less then the norm. For me it is obvious
> that some great five or more people will make the NYC a success. What I want
> to learn is in what way the national concerns that I expect a functional
> chapter to take care off will be handled for the USA. This is the crucial
> bit of thinking, information that is missing. And as long as this is not
> clear, the NYC is a sub-par to me.

What abilities and responsibilities does WMNYC not have that other
chapters do? And "sub" usually means "a small version that is
contained with a full one", without a WMUS, there is no chapter for
WMNYC to be a sub-chapter of. If you want a term to just mean "less
than a full chapter" try mini-chapter, although the (apparently
ill-defined) area covered by WMNYC does seem to be as large in terms
as population and economy as many of our "full" chapters.