Kim Bruning (seperate for lists) kim2 at
Thu Apr 26 18:46:56 UTC 2001

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Frederico S. [ISO-8859-1] Muñoz wrote:

> Jaime E . Villate wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 05:08:17PM +0200, Anne POSSOZ wrote:
> > 
> >> Being a belgian in Switzerland, I would also suggest that the division
> >> is not by country but also with some share of languages.

Well what we could do is have a chapter in each country, and then have
members of that chapter taking responsibility for a certain language (each
coordinating with other per-country chapters)

We apparently need th per-country chapters for legal reasons.

> > 
> >> Could we become more European and use language as a base for work.
> >> Documentation in national language is part of the point.
> >> And then, having subsection for each country speaking the same
> >> language but with different laws will be also very interesting
> >> to learn more about each others.

Something like that, yup.

> For example, I can antecipate same complications in a Spanish Chapter, 
> for example... Would a Spanish Chapter even exist? Catalan Chapter, 
> Euskera Chapter, Galician Chapter (this latter one even more divided 
> between normative galician and reintegrated galician)... I personally 
> can see the logic and would seem to me to be The Right Thing, but then 
> again people that live in Spain will probably strongly disagree or agree.

Netherlands have Dutch and Frisian, Belgium has Flemish and Wallonian,
Great Britain has English and Gaelic. I think just about every country in
Europe has a minority or 2 :-) 

So things might get a bit hairy if we make chapters by-language. I would
expect a large amount of fragmentation.

read you soon,
	Kim Bruning

More information about the Discussion mailing list