This proposal is amazing, if you are not ok with the points proposed it is because your are "against transparency"?? For what I'm concern this is not a fair proposal, It's look more like a POINT than other thing.--Chandres14:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ran into this while going over the recent changes, and while I can agree with the principle of the proposal, I find it hard to agree with having to obtain absolute community consensus to derive the legitimacy of chapters. It may be easy for monolingual chapters, but it becomes difficult for chapters like us, where under the proposed terms we'd have to consult with nine separate language communities (and growing) just to derive legitimacy, and even more so if those editors are not part of the organization. I do agree with the comment above though: the proposal should be more neutrally-worded. --Sky Harbor(talk)14:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is pure demagogy. I am not against transparency but against this proposal ! Of course a member of a given community should be -de facto- member of the Chapter of his her choice but it's another story Divol14:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chapters are geography based, not language. So why should UK chapter need to have an OK of Australia "language community". This proposal seems to me just another catalan vs spanish grudge. es:Magister Mathematicae14:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
