I support the email of Charles.
I would invite you to take in consideration a more flexible model and to
give the role of the chair or vice-chair to the chapters (may be
rotating the functions) and not to a single person.
Afterwards the chapter may decide who will be the person in charge, but
this would be an internal decision limited to the chapter.
This solution will help to share different points of view and to give
relevance to the chapters and not to people.
This solution will help also to avoid personal discussions (the chapter
may substitute the person in charge) and may focus the efforts in more
productive discussions.
I would say that it has been considered relevant the Iberocoop model but
this model has its own weaknesses, it's a good start but it's not a
valid model (and I think that Iberocoop members are aware of that).
In any relevant confederation the rotation is the most used solution. In
Europe for instance the presidency of the Council of EU is in charge of
each member but I would give the example of Switzerland (and the
Switzerland is a confederation since XIII century):
/President and Vice President rotate annually, each Councillor thus
becoming Vice President and then President [...]. The President is not
the Swiss head of state//, but he or she is the highest-ranking Swiss
official. He or she presides over Council meetings and carries out
certain representative functions that, in other countries, are the
business of the//head of state//. In urgent situations where a Council
decision cannot be made in time, the President is empowered to act on
behalf of the whole Council. Apart from that, though, the President is a
/*/primus inter pares/*/, having no power above and beyond the other six
Councillors/[1]
Please have in mind these words: "Primus inter pares".
So I invite you to help and to support a migration to a new model more
flexible, more decentralized and more focused on the needs of the chapters.
Regards
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primus_inter_pares#Switzerland
On 21.02.2013 12:07, Charles Andrès wrote:
Dear Fae,
I find it contradictory to consider that anticipated election of the chair is
good for WCA but that for the vice chair it would be bad, if we need to have
elections before Milano we can have both in parallel.
Anyway I was, and I'm still oppose to anticipated election. Since the beginning of the
discussion about WCA bylaws , the question of "do we need a chair and a vice
chair" hasn't been fixed, and I'm sorry to tell that provoking new election before
fixing this point is just bad.
Jan-Bart in a previous mail made the good comment that we should stop
discussing about membership and voting, but the question here is really about
what is the WCA.
Several chapters ask for an Iberocoop model, it means that they don't want a
chair and a vice chair. The people present in London can argue that at least
some position should exist to assure that coordination is done, but the 7
present in London cannot decide for 14 others. By deciding to anticipate the
election of the chair it's just what you have done.
In your answer you talk about WMF board asking directly or indirectly for your
replacement. This argument has been read in the personal comment of board
member, and all chapter are aware of that and will take it into account, or
not, when the time will come. But we don't need your resignation now whereas
the new election is already planned in just two month, the few week of
difference will not affect the WCA. Also if you are personally disputed by
people outside the chapter, the vice chair is at least equally disputed among
the chapter, what's the most important?
Ilario
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
