On 09/03/2011, at 10:15, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > All of this makes for one of the stronger arguments for a more decentralized > office structure at this point, in my opinion. (Lightly echoing what Liam > said.) > > MZMcBride
That's actually not what I said, or at least not what I meant to say. I am very supportive of the WMF being headquartered in San Fran and also of having offsite employees when applicable (being one myself for this year). But by "decentralising" I was referring to a focus more on building up the professional capacity of the Chapters and did not mean to refer to expanding the number of WMF offices (nationally or internationally). The strategic projects to create 'catalyst' teams/offices in India, Middle East and Brazil are very cool/worthy/useful projects and I support them fully. Ultimately though I would like to see these being developed with an aim to the infrastructure being "handed over" to the local chapter once it too is up to an appropriately professional standard. This is not the same as saying that the WMF should decentralise. I think the question that makes this debate the clearest is when you ask: "should there be a Wikimedia USA chapter". If you think "Yes" then that implies there will be a USA office (in NYC?) that is for domestic issues and the WMF office in San Fran for the movement generally - rather like the way there is a Red Cross Switzerland and also the International Committee of the Red Cross/Crescent in Geneva. If you think "No" then that implies that Chapters need only be in places/roles that the WMF choses not to focus on. Unsurprisingly - I think "Yes". -Liam Wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
