[Foundation-l] Chapters

[Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com]

On Aug 9, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:


> 
>> Writing about ethical concerns while at same time being blind to anything
>> that does not maximize donations is laughable.  The obvious solution to the
>> stated concern that is being raised is returning to the split screen
>> fundraiser landing page which has been ruled out for not maximizing
>> donations. The seemingly underlying and unstated concern about wanting to
>> make sure that WMF leads and maintains control of the movement is actually
>> undesirable and should not be pursued.
> 
> 
> I don't see the concern as either unstated or undesirable.  Why shouldn't
> the WMF lead the movement?  Or, to put it another way, why should the WMF
> cede its leadership role to an amorphous collective of chapters, which --
> unlike the WMF -- has no clear leadership, may or may not enjoy a suitable
> level of organizational maturity, and is subject to a hodgepodge of local
> legal systems which may or may not be friendly to the Wikimedia mission?
> The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter -- has no inherent
> right to lead the movement.  We may choose to _allow_ it to lead, of course
> -- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate that it is worthy of such a
> role, not for everyone else to prove that it isn't.
> 

It is undesirable because it will not work. Whoever said chapters had an inherent right to lead the movement?  Why must the movement be lead by any organization? Can the work not be simply supported by organizations while those on the ground take the lead in the program work? 

I don't think chapters are the greatest thing ever invented.  I do think their most useful role is as a check against WMF going in the wrong direction. That people turned off by WMF might have another outlet besides abandoning the movement altogether. Without some real independence from WMF, I don't think chapters are really going to be very worthwhile.

BirgitteSB