[Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

[Ilario Valdelli]

I support the email of Charles.

I would invite you to take in consideration a more flexible model and to 
give the role of the chair or vice-chair to the chapters (may be 
rotating the functions) and not to a single person.

Afterwards the chapter may decide who will be the person in charge, but 
this would be an internal decision limited to the chapter.

This solution will help to share different points of view and to give 
relevance to the chapters and not to people.

This solution will help also to avoid personal discussions (the chapter 
may substitute the person in charge) and may focus the efforts in more 
productive discussions.

I would say that it has been considered relevant the Iberocoop model but 
this model has its own weaknesses, it's a good start but it's not a 
valid model (and I think that Iberocoop members are aware of that).

In any relevant confederation the rotation is the most used solution. In 
Europe for instance the presidency of the Council of EU is in charge of 
each member but I would give the example of Switzerland (and the 
Switzerland is a confederation since XIII century):

/President and Vice President rotate annually, each Councillor thus 
becoming Vice President and then President [...]. The President is not 
the Swiss head of state//, but he or she is the highest-ranking Swiss 
official. He or she presides over Council meetings and carries out 
certain representative functions that, in other countries, are the 
business of the//head of state//. In urgent situations where a Council 
decision cannot be made in time, the President is empowered to act on 
behalf of the whole Council. Apart from that, though, the President is a 
/*/primus inter pares/*/, having no power above and beyond the other six 
Councillors/[1]

Please have in mind these words: "Primus inter pares".

So I invite you to help and to support a migration to a new model more 
flexible, more decentralized and more focused on the needs of the chapters.

Regards

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primus_inter_pares#Switzerland

On 21.02.2013 12:07, Charles Andrès wrote:
> Dear Fae,
>
> I find it contradictory to consider that anticipated election of the chair is good for WCA but that for the vice chair it would be bad, if we need to have elections before Milano we can have both in parallel.
>
> Anyway I was,  and I'm still  oppose to anticipated election.  Since the beginning of the discussion about WCA bylaws , the question of "do we need a chair and a vice chair" hasn't been fixed, and I'm sorry to tell that provoking new election before fixing this point is just bad.
>
>
> Jan-Bart in a previous mail made the good comment that we should stop discussing about membership and voting, but the question here is really about what is the WCA.
> Several chapters ask for an Iberocoop model, it means that they don't want a chair and a vice chair. The people present in London can argue that at least some position should exist to assure that coordination is done, but the 7 present in London cannot decide for 14 others.  By deciding to anticipate the election of the chair it's just what you have done.
>
> In your answer you talk about WMF board asking directly or indirectly for your replacement. This argument has been read in the personal comment of board member, and all chapter are aware of that and will take it into account, or not, when the time will come. But we don't need your resignation now whereas the new election is already planned in just two month, the few week of difference will not affect the WCA. Also if you are personally disputed by people outside the chapter, the vice chair is at least equally disputed among the chapter, what's the most important?
>
>

Ilario