On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard <[email protected]> wrote: > It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :)
I'm not getting the reference. Can you help? >> I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within >> the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a >> representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. > > [snip] >> On of the main issues I see here was that those attending the chapter >> meeting had no "mandate" from their chapters to enter into any sort of >> agreement. If that is addressed prior to the next meeting, i.e. each >> chapter sends a representative with the necessary mandate to vote, I >> don't see why we would not be able to make a decision at the meeting >> that binds the chapters that attend. > > I tend to agree with you, but I believe you have to keep in mind many > singularities within chapters. This, if it happens, would be a very > big strech for some of the chapters, where decisions are made > "collectively" all the time, and the decision is a product of > "consensus" and debate, and can only with difficulties be handed to > one person. Yes, I agree too. That's why I wrote it would be ideal to have two people. > Make it a cultural particularity or a wiki-culture heritage, whatever, > but I think that some chapters might have a very hard time appointing > who they consider "the right person" to make decisions that could > engage the chapter for a long term plan of any kind. If only because > their strength lies in having very different individuals in their > board and/or membership, with different ideas, which act as synergy > when put together, but could lead to a standstill if left "alone" > (think for an extreme example, the person "mandated" says yes and then > is disavowed by the board/the members etc.). If the chapters each send two representatives and there's disagreement among the board, the mandate could also stipulate that they both have to agree to give a vote on behalf of the chapter. This obviously gets quite unwieldy with more than two representatives. > I do believe it is something to consider. If decisions are made on a > consensus basis, then maybe this does not have such an influence. As > soon as you try and introduce some "voting" system or other, the > balance might be heavily tipped one way and not reflect what would > come out of a consensus, taking all particularities into consideration > (which does not mean you have to accommodate them, but which does mean > you have to look at them). Yes, this does open a few issues. It's something we should discuss in April. Perhaps it might be useful for the chapters represented there to formulate some common opinon on chapters or the chapter-foundation relationship. > But then, take all of the above with a grain of salt, I'm French, and > we French think we deserve our place in the sun ;-) Diversity in opinion and thought is what makes us strong :) Sebastian _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
