[Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Tue Jan 20 21:44:43 UTC 2009

Hoi,
When you call the non performing chapters malperforming, I am ok with that.
It is calling a spade a spade.

Calling it insulting that the NYC has fewer responsibilities indicates that
you have a thin skin. I am the first to acknowledge that the NYC did some
great things. I love to learn the good things they do so that I can use them
when appropriate. I do think that it is wrong that there is no USA chapter,
I also think that the NYC should be part of such a chapter. The one thing
were you do not get it, is that it is not geographically, it is about
jurisdictions, tax exemptons et al. This is where national rules make the
difference.
Thanks,
    GerardM

2009/1/20 Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>

> Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that Wikimedia
> needs an American chapter to fulfill chapter functions nationwide, and that
> the NYC chapter is subpar because it will not?
>
> What you've been asked is to use the accurate name of the chapter type
> rather than one that is inaccurately descriptive. You may believe that
> there
> are deficiencies in the notion of a sub-national chapter that earn it the
> "sub-chapter" description, but I think its rather insulting of you to
> insist
> on using it when its been made clear that its initial use was a
> misunderstanding. By a similar token, should we insist on calling not very
> active or useful national chapters something like "mal-chapters" or "dead
> weight chapters" in regular conversation? I don't think so.
>
> The New York chapter does not appear to be limited in any functional way -
> it can perform all the functions of any normal chapter, it has merely
> determined a specific geographic region in which to pursue those functions.
> Why this makes it any less of a chapter than some other specific
> geographically restricted chapter that happens to coincide with national
> political borders I don't fully understand. Can you expand on that, please?
>
> Of course, the chapter has already been created and recognized and going
> forward it will be the membership of the chapter of New York City that is
> responsible for its role and functioning, not the members of this list.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When the right five friends come together, they do not need their dog to
> > make a successful organisation. Five people are enough to make a bored,
> > five
> > people are enough to raise money. It takes dedication and a lot of
> effort.
> >
> > One essential ingredient is that a chapter represents to some extend the
> > people of projects. Key is the limitation; a chapter has a particular
> > importance that the organisational aspects of the WMF get represented. It
> > is
> > not right that most of the donations are from the USA. This means that a
> > more local chapter effort needs to make a difference in Europe, Asia,
> > Africa, Australia and South America.
> >
> > The reason why a chapter represents to some extend the people of projects
> > exists on several levels and on the other hand it is wrong. Many of the
> > activities have no relation to the projects at all while a chapter
> provides
> > the projects with opportunities that would otherwise not exist. By being
> > organised there is the opportunity to connect to archives, to politics,
> to
> > become the public face for the projects.
> >
> > 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.
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> > 2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com>
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of
> > > > chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a
> > > > Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento
> and
> > > > a few smaller cities come together to make a chapter, would this then
> > > > be "Wikimedia California except Los Angeles City and Monterey
> County"?
> > > > Or should it perhaps also be restricted to not include San Francisco,
> > > > since perhaps there will be a city chapter there, and created the
> > > > "California-except" chapter would make such impossible?
> > >
> > > 5 Friends and their dog cannot make a chapter. To become a chapter,
> > > you need to have critical mass: You need enough people to form a
> > > board, you need possible members. You need to be able to raise money,
> > > and you need to be able to perform activities. If we have a situation
> > > where there are enough Wikimedians in Scramento, Los Angeles, and San
> > > Jose to each form chapters, we should consider ourselves to be very
> > > lucky. More likely, to build the critical mass necessary to start a
> > > new chapter, Wikimedians from all these places may need to work
> > > together instead of working apart. The smaller the geographical area
> > > is, the fewer potential members you have, the less money you are
> > > likely to be able to raise, and the fewer outreach activities you will
> > > have available to you.
> > >
> > > --Andrew Whitworth
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
> today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>