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

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

Hey

So my 2 cents

I do consider the chapters to be an integral part of the community. Some of our community members prefer to work individually and some prefer to work together. Some things can be done by individuals and some things require organisations like chapters or thematic organisations. Wiki Loves Monuments is a great example of supporting the cause and it could only be done by collaboration between several chapters. Discussion about the role of chapters, thematic organisations or indeed the foundation itself are very healthy, but lets not forget that we are all part of the movement and share the common goals. If any one of the players of the movement does not support the goals, we should address that, but lets not disqualify those people that choose to help that are simply not editing individuals (as someone once said: "it takes all kinds to make the world go round"

So I regard both the elected and the selected seats to be community seats.

Jan-Bart


On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:42 PM, 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.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l