Thanks everyone for the comments. To respond to three points raised:
On Dec 6, 5:11 pm, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/12/6 AndrewRT
<andrewrtur...(a)googlemail.com>om>:
That's pretty much what I've been thinking, although I'm not sure we
need it yet. I think we ought to let the members of each branch elect
their chair, though (ratified by the board).
I think that's stage 2 - autonomous branches. Where you only have two
or three members having a full blown election seems unnecessary, but a
"skeleton branch" would be useful because it gives us a way of using
the name before moving to a full autonomous branch.
For the
constitutionalists among readers, I'd propose we establish the
branches through an Article 28 resolution of the Board, ratified by
the next AGM.
I disagree. I think Article 3.1 is better suited to it.
Article 3.1 would need permission of the AGM first and I'm not sure it
would quite fit. I'm talking about two particular projects that could
be started before the AGM.
As for London, although it may be a great branch in terms of running
activities - although we already have the London Wikimeet for that -
I'm not sure we could do anything as "Wikimedia London" that we
couldn't do as "Wikimedia UK". Besides, we didn't actually ask for
permission to use "Wikimedia London"!
Andrew