Hi Pradeep, Yes, the chapter needs to do a membership drive. It also needs to have a membership policy to make sure that only people who genuinely work towards the mission are enrolled. Mass enrolment without any criterion can be a governance disaster later. However, these things are best addressed when we actively take part in the chapter activities and push for these changes. Criticizing from outside is not going to help. Let me know if any one here has tried to do a membership drive and the chapter has discouraged it.
I understand your concern for the chapter representing the community. But, we need to put things in context before criticizing the chapter. Wikimedia Foundation is not a membership driven organization and only 3 out of it's 10 members are directly elected by the community. Other two are elected by the chapters. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees CIS is a membership organization and it chooses to have only 8 members who elect 3 board members. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/The_Centre_for_Internet_and_Society/Proposal_form#Clarification_about_CIS_Board_and_Rent I have never seen anyone criticizing these agencies for lack of democracy even though they have demonstrated shortcomings in working with the community. The latest example is the dissent voiced from German Wikipedia with signatories from all over the world https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superprotect_and_Media_Viewer Last year, English Wikipedians revolted against Visual editor http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-visualeditor-kww-patch/ Assuming concerns on the lines of democracy are over looked for these agencies based on their performance, then we should also view chapter on the same lines. Setting aside leadership, governance and financial constraints, is the chapter capable of attracting more volunteers? Please note that editing in Wiki and volunteering for offline efforts like outreach and chapter work are two different things. Indian Wikipedias face acute shortage of next generation active editors. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/telugu-wikipedia-struggles-to-stay-afloat/article6255003.ece Based on my experience, it will be great even if 1 among 10 very active active editors (who make 100 edits a month) volunteer for these offline efforts. Most of the Indian language Wikipedians have their commitment towards the language and bandwidth for organizational activities can only take a second seat. Not everyone can become a Wikipedian and not every Wikipedian can become an effective chapter volunteer. These require different set of skills, attitude and commitment. Many potential volunteers have already contributed for the chapter and got burnt out. So, what the chapter is facing is a chicken and egg problem. If WMF and CIS cannot make ground breaking changes with all their expertise, resources and programs since 2011, I am amused why would anyone hold chapter responsible for all problems. Wikimedia India chapter is a budding organization and it will take time to stabilize. What we are witnessing is expected behaviour only. But, most of the recent mail threads sound very keen to do a postmortem for chapter without any contribution towards it or any viable alternative outside of it. //I have been labelled an anarchist and as an often-quitter.// I respect your personal commitments which stand in between Wikipedia contributions but you can't be selectively anarchic :) Ravi
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindiaemail@example.com To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l