On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Florence Devouard <[email protected]> wrote: >> If this were the case, establishing any sort of organization with >> organizations as members and some sort of decision-making authority >> would generally be close to impossible. If there is disagreement in >> certain areas among the board, the representative's mandate should >> just exlude that topic area. That means, he can participate in some >> discussions in a binding way, in others only in an >> advisory/consultative manner. > > Correct. > Which is fine as long as no decision is made during the general meeting > with all chapters... :-(
I don't quite follow. I suggested an exclusion by topic. So some decisions they will participate and vote, others they will not. It entirely depends on what authority they get from their board/chapter. >> Sure. The question is one of fairness: is it fair for some chapters to >> send five delegates (i.e. voices in discussion) when others can only >> afford to send one? > > LOL. > > Is that fair that some participants are fluent with English and others > are not ? > Is that fair that some participants have a loud voice and others a weak > one that can not float over the general noise ? > Is that fair that some participants are easy and outgoing, whilst others > are rather discreet and shy ? > Is that fair that a very well developped chapter has only one voice to > elect a member whilst a brand new little chapter also has one ? > > There is no fairness in the world Seb, only an approach of fairness :-) No need to belittle my point. I was talking about an approach to fairness that involves giving each chapter as fair a voice as is possible. Like above, some compromise needs to be made. Having each chapter choose two representatives is such a compromise. Sebastian _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
