[Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Michael Snow]

Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Florence Devouard wrote:
>   
>> The confusion mostly came from the fact I had absolutely not 
>> understood that chapters at the national level, or chapter at 
>> any other level would have exactly the same rights and roles 
>> than the currently existing chapters.
>>     
> I'm confused by your description of chapters as a tool for "having 
> rights" or "having roles". I'm also skeptic to the chapters voting 
> for board members of the foundation. That is a privilege that I 
> never asked for.  (This is just my personal view.)
>   
Understanding that it wasn't asked for, and some people may not want it, 
however the chapters have at points expressed concern about whether the 
foundation adequately considers their needs. It therefore seemed 
sensible to create a structural connection in this way while not 
undermining the chapters' position as independent entities. And we have 
the ongoing challenge of finding enough suitable board members to 
effectively oversee the organization, for which no process we've tried 
so far has proved exactly perfect. So for now we have a variety in the 
hopes that each avenue can bring some benefit to the table.

Anyway, I mostly agree that it's not so much about "having rights" as it 
is about how to help the fundamental mission. Having a "role" is 
somewhere in between, as it could incorporate either aspect. Asserting 
certain "rights" makes no sense unless you can articulate the 
corresponding responsibilities you've assumed and how you're fulfilling 
those. In this I speak as much about individuals (those claiming 
entitlements on-wiki) as about the chapters. Focusing on how to make a 
positive contribution is a useful substitute.

--Michael Snow