[Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?

[Christophe Henner]

On 22 February 2013 18:42, cyrano <cyrano.fawkes at gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 19/02/2013 11:23, Christophe Henner a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> I would even add that chapters should, and perhaps are, be key part of our
>> community. Online communities tend to "die" slowly over the time. The main
>> reason is that "virtual" bonds are much easier to forget than "physical"
>> ones. I mean it's easier stop sending email to someone than stopping to
>> see
>> someone.
>
>
> I think Wikipedia gathered such a community because of an ideal, not of
> social bonds. Though parts of the community may form social, professional or
> political bonds, and thus perdure through these mechanisms, the cause
> "sharing the knowledge" should be the main raison d'être of the community.
> Thus, I disagree that Chapters should be considered the key part of the
> community: the cause should be the key part. In fact, if the cause ceases to
> be the highest priority, then the community will tend to die and only the
> institutions will tend to remain because of their own inertia and interests.
> I don't consider that a good thing per se since this tends to lead to
> sclerosis and a hollow structure with no other point than perpetuating
> itself, instead of pushing for the next needed accomplishments to collect
> and disseminate knowledge.
>

The starting point is the ideal. But if I've lasted so long in here
it's because of a bunch of awesome people I met, not the ideal only.

It's because of the people that Wikimedia is making me grow, not the ideal.

The iseal is a shared value, the bond is, well, a bond. One isn't the
opposite of the other. They benefit from each other.
Why should we have only one priority? I mean, yes free knowledge is
our goal, but isn't ensuring we have a healthy community another
important goal? And well, I'd say community health isn't our best
achievement now on most of the projects. Ignoring that is dangerous on
the long run.

I mean your point is moot in itself as so far the ideal has been our
top priority and the community is slowly shrinking :)

>
>> Yes, chapter as such do not edit the projects directly. But does this mean
>> they're not part of the community? I don't think so. They're a different
>> part of the community, but still are a part of the community.
>
> Being part of the community doesn't allow to act on the name of the entire
> community. The gap between the community and the Chapters is significant
> enough to distinguish both, in particular for political and communicational
> matters.
>

When  do chapters act as such? I mean I read that a lot, but I still
have to wait clear cases.

And please Beria, read what I wrote "They're a different part of the
community, but still are a part of the community.". :)

>
>
>>
>> So should the Chapters seats be considered asa "Community seats" ? I'd say
>> that the term is wrong.
>>
>> We have the "editing community seats", the "meta" community seats and the
>> appointed seats. Perhaps we should differentiate the two sides of the
>> community.
>
> Why not distinguish the community seats from the Chapters seats with the
> terms "community seats" and " Chapters seats"?
> Using the word community in both cases may induce to believe that's it's the
> same community with two branches. But nothing guarantees that unity.
>

Because chapters are part of the community. The editing community
elect board members, and chapters propose board members. But all those
seats are chosen by the Community at large :)

> By the way, what would you say Chapters actually are? Is it correct to say
> that they're an administrative organization financed by the WMF through Fund
> Dissemination Commitees?
>

Nope. That is sad if you see your chapter like that :)

I mean "administrative organization", with all the programs we do,
admin is actually the thing we're behind... So no.

"financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees" that is
each chapters' choice, nobody is forcing anyone to get grants or money
from the FDC. Actually, we, WMFr, are working on alternate funding
(for the programs) to top FDC/grants. Because we believe a chapter has
the ability to get money the movement wouldn't have other wise (local
public funding, local sponsorships, local major donors, etc.).

So if you would describe your chapter as "dministrative organization
financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees", and that
you don't like it. Too bad, but nobody forces your chapter to be that,
you (or your board) did :)

Best exemple I can remember, if it has not change, is WMPL that is
mostly self sufficient for years and doing really cool stuff (though
we don't hear about it enough ^^).

Christophe