[Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[Delphine Ménard]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 14:49, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was
>> very tiny having two chapters?
>
> If the very tiny country had enough active wikimedians to create
> critical mass for two chapters, and if those two groups found that
> they absolutely could not work together and that it would be far
> easier for them to organize separately, then yes that would be okay.
> The size of the region isn't nearly so important as other factors like
> activity level. We also cannot pretend that we know how people in
> country X should organize better then those people do themselves.
> Organizers will tell us what's right for them, we do not tell them
> what is right for them (although we can always make thoughtful
> suggestions).

I completely disagree with your analysis here.

No, if a very tiny country had enough wikimedians to create critical
mass to create two chapters, _and if those two groups found that they
absolutely could not work together_ (even if it's easier), then no,
the Wikimedia Foundation should never ever agree to recognize both
chapters. Chapters _must_ make sense. Actually, this is true of tiny
or big countries.

A NYC chapter makes sense, because today, there is no other "chapter"
that will not go and act in New York without consulting with the
chapter. And the WMF operates on a different level. Two, three, twenty
groups (however active) that potentially have the exact same
interlocutors should not be allowed to be called "Wikimedia" and be
given the name of chapter.

This is where we might want to have national chapters precluding
sub-national chapters "that make sense". Belgium in that regard is an
interesting example. If you let a Wikimedia Belgie-only-dutch-speaking
chapter happen, or a Wikimedia Belgique-only-French-speaking chapter
happen (as was proposed a looong time ago), you are stuck with the
fact that Wikimedia Belgium is in one language and not in the other.
However, setting aside all cultural and linguistic aspects of the
country, which are real, and even legal aspects which might be
different depending the "region", the "national institutions" are
_national_. As such, they should have one interlocutor and one only.
This said, in Belgium, it might make perfect sense to have two
sections of the same chapter, one that will focus on one language
and/or regional institutions, the other on the other.

And in my opinion, it also would be ok if one group of people focused
on one language was to start the chapter, with little involvement from
the other language(s), as long as the bylaws would reflect this
diversity and allow for other to join.


Delphine

-- 
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org