Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Michael C . Berch]

The same way as in any large organization, commercial or nonprofit. There is no 
reason they have to have any independent legal existence, and in many 
organizations, they don't. They can just be informal subgroupings, organized 
for convenience (geographical, topical, or otherwise) of the organization as a 
whole, with or without whatever budgetary authority is granted by the 
organization's management.  

Agreements about projects and funding could be mediated through the parent 
organization (through the Board, or whatever committee handles affiliate 
matters), or simply handled informally.  

This in addition to what James Alexander mentioned about unincorporated 
associations.  

-- 
Michael C. Berch
User:MCB
m...@postmodern.com


On Dec 22, 2012, at 12:25 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:

> When you have chapters and affiliates that aren't incorporated, how do you 
> handle agreements or grants between such entities?  SJ.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Michael C. Berch  
> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2012, at 6:49 PM, James Alexander wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch  
>> wrote:
>>  There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities" is an 
>> irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people.
>> 
>> --
>> Michael C. Berch
>> User:MCB
>> m...@postmodern.com
>> 
>> 
>> There most certainly are legal and financial stakes. An incorporated 
>> organization costs a not insignificant amount of resources and cash to 
>> maintain even before they do anything at all. This is especially true when 
>> you are spanning multiple diverse jurisdictions (such as states or 
>> countries) and have to know at least some of the laws of each. I don't think 
>> towns/cities are a major problem. I'm sure it will be an added wrinkle given 
>> that the jurisdiction overlaps the foundations offices itself.
> 
> I can't speak to jurisdictions outside the U.S., but I have a fair amount of 
> experience and expertise with respect to both business and nonprofit entities 
> in the U.S. I have formed and advised a number of both as an attorney, and I 
> can assure you that there are no problems in operating a 501(c)(3) 
> organization (or similar) that operates in multiple or overlapping states, 
> counties, or municipalities. It is also not particularly necessary that a 
> "chapter" or "affiliate" of a national or global nonprofit (like Wikimedia 
> Foundation) be, itself, an incorporated entity. (The Board of Directors may 
> specify that as a requirement, but it is not a legal one.) 
> 
> Inexperienced organizations often "over-organize" when it comes to local 
> chapters and affiliates, drawing precise geographical jurisdictional lines or 
> requiring that the affiliates represent some particular level of subnational 
> entities.  There are a number of reasons why this happens, including 
> intra-organizational politics and misunderstanding of legal issues. It is 
> almost never a good idea, and as we see, generates unneeded conflicts. 
> 
> -- 
> Michael C. Berch
> User:MCB
> m...@postmodern.com
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Samuel Klein]

Yes, it seems that "incorporate" could usefully be replaced with "form a
registered association" in a lot of wikimedia docs / recommendations.


On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 2:04 AM, James Alexander wrote:

> You can very much have an entity (and even file tax returns or request
> tax-exempt status at a federal or state level) without incorporation and
> can have legally binding agreements despite the lack of incorporation. It
> does sometimes open users up to a bit more personal liability but can be a
> very good option for people who are just getting together to do something
> good :).
>
> The uniform definition I generally see is that an "unincorporated
> nonprofit association as an unincorporated organization consisting of three
> or more members joined by mutual consent for a common, nonprofit purpose"
>
> James
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
>> When you have chapters and affiliates that aren't incorporated, how do
>> you handle agreements or grants between such entities?  SJ.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Michael C. Berch 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 19, 2012, at 6:49 PM, James Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities"
 is an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people.

 --
 Michael C. Berch
 User:MCB
 m...@postmodern.com


>>> There most certainly are legal and financial stakes. An incorporated
>>> organization costs a not insignificant amount of resources and cash to
>>> maintain even before they do anything at all. This is especially true when
>>> you are spanning multiple diverse jurisdictions (such as states or
>>> countries) and have to know at least some of the laws of each. I don't
>>> think towns/cities are a major problem. I'm sure it will be an added
>>> wrinkle given that the jurisdiction overlaps the foundations offices itself.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't speak to jurisdictions outside the U.S., but I have a fair
>>> amount of experience and expertise with respect to both business and
>>> nonprofit entities in the U.S. I have formed and advised a number of both
>>> as an attorney, and I can assure you that there are no problems in
>>> operating a 501(c)(3) organization (or similar) that operates in multiple
>>> or overlapping states, counties, or municipalities. It is also not
>>> particularly necessary that a "chapter" or "affiliate" of a national or
>>> global nonprofit (like Wikimedia Foundation) be, itself, an incorporated
>>> entity. (The Board of Directors may specify that as a requirement, but it
>>> is not a legal one.)
>>>
>>> Inexperienced organizations often "over-organize" when it comes to local
>>> chapters and affiliates, drawing precise geographical jurisdictional lines
>>> or requiring that the affiliates represent some particular level of
>>> subnational entities.  There are a number of reasons why this happens,
>>> including intra-organizational politics and misunderstanding of legal
>>> issues. It is almost never a good idea, and as we see, generates unneeded
>>> conflicts.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael C. Berch
>>> User:MCB
>>> m...@postmodern.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529
>> 4266
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
>> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> James Alexander
> jameso...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[James Alexander]

You can very much have an entity (and even file tax returns or request
tax-exempt status at a federal or state level) without incorporation and
can have legally binding agreements despite the lack of incorporation. It
does sometimes open users up to a bit more personal liability but can be a
very good option for people who are just getting together to do something
good :).

The uniform definition I generally see is that an "unincorporated nonprofit
association as an unincorporated organization consisting of three or more
members joined by mutual consent for a common, nonprofit purpose"

James

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> When you have chapters and affiliates that aren't incorporated, how do you
> handle agreements or grants between such entities?  SJ.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Michael C. Berch wrote:
>
>> On Dec 19, 2012, at 6:49 PM, James Alexander wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch wrote:
>>
>>>  There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities"
>>> is an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael C. Berch
>>> User:MCB
>>> m...@postmodern.com
>>>
>>>
>> There most certainly are legal and financial stakes. An incorporated
>> organization costs a not insignificant amount of resources and cash to
>> maintain even before they do anything at all. This is especially true when
>> you are spanning multiple diverse jurisdictions (such as states or
>> countries) and have to know at least some of the laws of each. I don't
>> think towns/cities are a major problem. I'm sure it will be an added
>> wrinkle given that the jurisdiction overlaps the foundations offices itself.
>>
>>
>> I can't speak to jurisdictions outside the U.S., but I have a fair amount
>> of experience and expertise with respect to both business and nonprofit
>> entities in the U.S. I have formed and advised a number of both as an
>> attorney, and I can assure you that there are no problems in operating a
>> 501(c)(3) organization (or similar) that operates in multiple or
>> overlapping states, counties, or municipalities. It is also not
>> particularly necessary that a "chapter" or "affiliate" of a national or
>> global nonprofit (like Wikimedia Foundation) be, itself, an incorporated
>> entity. (The Board of Directors may specify that as a requirement, but it
>> is not a legal one.)
>>
>> Inexperienced organizations often "over-organize" when it comes to local
>> chapters and affiliates, drawing precise geographical jurisdictional lines
>> or requiring that the affiliates represent some particular level of
>> subnational entities.  There are a number of reasons why this happens,
>> including intra-organizational politics and misunderstanding of legal
>> issues. It is almost never a good idea, and as we see, generates unneeded
>> conflicts.
>>
>> --
>> Michael C. Berch
>> User:MCB
>> m...@postmodern.com
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
>> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
>
>


-- 
James Alexander
jameso...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Samuel Klein]

When you have chapters and affiliates that aren't incorporated, how do you
handle agreements or grants between such entities?  SJ.


On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Michael C. Berch wrote:

> On Dec 19, 2012, at 6:49 PM, James Alexander wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch wrote:
>
>>  There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities" is
>> an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people.
>>
>> --
>> Michael C. Berch
>> User:MCB
>> m...@postmodern.com
>>
>>
> There most certainly are legal and financial stakes. An incorporated
> organization costs a not insignificant amount of resources and cash to
> maintain even before they do anything at all. This is especially true when
> you are spanning multiple diverse jurisdictions (such as states or
> countries) and have to know at least some of the laws of each. I don't
> think towns/cities are a major problem. I'm sure it will be an added
> wrinkle given that the jurisdiction overlaps the foundations offices itself.
>
>
> I can't speak to jurisdictions outside the U.S., but I have a fair amount
> of experience and expertise with respect to both business and nonprofit
> entities in the U.S. I have formed and advised a number of both as an
> attorney, and I can assure you that there are no problems in operating a
> 501(c)(3) organization (or similar) that operates in multiple or
> overlapping states, counties, or municipalities. It is also not
> particularly necessary that a "chapter" or "affiliate" of a national or
> global nonprofit (like Wikimedia Foundation) be, itself, an incorporated
> entity. (The Board of Directors may specify that as a requirement, but it
> is not a legal one.)
>
> Inexperienced organizations often "over-organize" when it comes to local
> chapters and affiliates, drawing precise geographical jurisdictional lines
> or requiring that the affiliates represent some particular level of
> subnational entities.  There are a number of reasons why this happens,
> including intra-organizational politics and misunderstanding of legal
> issues. It is almost never a good idea, and as we see, generates unneeded
> conflicts.
>
> --
> Michael C. Berch
> User:MCB
> m...@postmodern.com
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
>
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Michael C. Berch]

On Dec 19, 2012, at 6:49 PM, James Alexander wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch  wrote:
>  There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities" is an 
> irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people.
> 
> --
> Michael C. Berch
> User:MCB
> m...@postmodern.com
> 
> 
> There most certainly are legal and financial stakes. An incorporated 
> organization costs a not insignificant amount of resources and cash to 
> maintain even before they do anything at all. This is especially true when 
> you are spanning multiple diverse jurisdictions (such as states or countries) 
> and have to know at least some of the laws of each. I don't think 
> towns/cities are a major problem. I'm sure it will be an added wrinkle given 
> that the jurisdiction overlaps the foundations offices itself.

I can't speak to jurisdictions outside the U.S., but I have a fair amount of 
experience and expertise with respect to both business and nonprofit entities 
in the U.S. I have formed and advised a number of both as an attorney, and I 
can assure you that there are no problems in operating a 501(c)(3) organization 
(or similar) that operates in multiple or overlapping states, counties, or 
municipalities. It is also not particularly necessary that a "chapter" or 
"affiliate" of a national or global nonprofit (like Wikimedia Foundation) be, 
itself, an incorporated entity. (The Board of Directors may specify that as a 
requirement, but it is not a legal one.) 

Inexperienced organizations often "over-organize" when it comes to local 
chapters and affiliates, drawing precise geographical jurisdictional lines or 
requiring that the affiliates represent some particular level of subnational 
entities.  There are a number of reasons why this happens, including 
intra-organizational politics and misunderstanding of legal issues. It is 
almost never a good idea, and as we see, generates unneeded conflicts. 

-- 
Michael C. Berch
User:MCB
m...@postmodern.com

___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Pete Forsyth]

On Dec 19, 2012, at 5:20 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:

> difficult to keep meetup groups going in the proposed Cascadia geography

Say now, what? :) Seems to me we had *two* great events last week, Oakland Wiki 
just announced weekly edit-a-thons at the library, various other things in the 
works. Portland had a real successful Wiki Loves Libraries event a month or two 
back, we've had various fun wiknics, Wiki Loves Monuments…maybe it's the lack 
of the sense of a cohesive "group" you're noting? Could be, but I'm not sure 
that's a necessary ingredient to moving things forward. Actually, I think a 
world in which lots of people and groups are supporting Wikipedia in 
small/quasi-connected ways is pretty exciting! Not better or worse than a more 
structured approach, but pretty enjoyable and productive.

Pete___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Philippe Beaudette]

I think Pete speaks with some wisdom here:  a question that I would put to
the group...

"What is the need, seeking to be filled, that requires the incorporation of
a new group, in this instance?"


Once you've got a good answer to that question, then you're pointed in the
right direction.

Until that question and an answer can be articulated (and I haven't heard
one yet), it's a solution looking for a problem.

pb

(Personal capacity, yada yada yada)

___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

phili...@wikimedia.org



On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> SJ, thanks for your much better-informed post, ours crossed in the mail,
> I'd have left it to you if I knew that was coming!
>
> To all, I would suggest you ignore my post in deference to his. I do want
> to say, I think you've misunderstood me in a couple places (probably my
> fault for not being clear) -- most significantly, it wasn't my intent to
> judge anyone, or or make assumptions about what they say; overall, I was
> really just trying to make the same point you did (that chapters are not
> the only way to organize), only I did it much less eloquently.
>
> Again though, to all -- the best thing would probably be to ignore my
> post, as the one SJ wrote about the same time covers the issue much better.
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>>
>> * Chapters historically came into existence to (1) process donations in
>> local currency and (2) deal with local legal issues
>>
>
> I would say it is more
> (3) provide an organization that could handle local partnerships and
> communication: with content and promotion and other targeted projects.  The
> sort of thing that the WMF explicitly leaves to other entities, by virtue
> of not accepting targeted donations.
>
>
>> * The difficulty of forming a chapter that doesn't conform to legal
>> borders has caused tension in recent years
>>
>
> This was feared but has not been true in practice.   (It was an issue of
> forming an incorporated entity, period, not specific to a chapter.)
>
>
>> * The WMF Board and many in the community are aware and concerned about
>> this
>>
>
> Not sure...  concerned about what here?  The explicit recognition of other
> entities was to avoid forcing groups into a narrow mould in order to be
> recognized as a stable part of the movement.  It wasn't in response to
> issues with geographic groups that weren't national; it was in to recognize
> the majority of groups that are not geographic at all.
>
>
>> * The general solution is not so much to adapt the Chapter model to fit
>> other cases, as to establish that other cases are fine *without* carrying
>> the name "chapter".
>>
>
>>
> The Wikimedia movement has a new approach to funds dissemination; being a
>> chapter is not the only way to get grants or put the name "Wikipedia" (or
>> "Wikimedia" etc.) to good use.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> In other words, just because the CHAPTERS committee
>>
>
> There is no longer a chapters committee; it is now the Affiliations
> Committee :)  And please don't judge what they /might/ think; just ask them.
>
> SJ
>  ___
> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
>
>
>  Pete Forsyth
> petefors...@gmail.com
> 503-383-9454 mobile
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
>
>
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[phoebe ayers]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

>
> * The general solution is not so much to adapt the Chapter model to fit
> other cases, as to establish that other cases are fine *without* carrying
> the name "chapter".
>
> The Wikimedia movement has a new approach to funds dissemination; being a
> chapter is not the only way to get grants or put the name "Wikipedia" (or
> "Wikimedia" etc.) to good use.
>

Specifically: Wikimedia is recognizing 'new models of affiliation',  which
means that various kinds of groups, including those organized around a
common interest that isn't geographically bounded (librarians!) or those
which span some kind of non-legal geography (Cascadia). I can also +1 what
SJ just said.

I would love to see the WM-US group explore really innovative ideas about
what such a geographically broad organization might do and what themes it
might encompass; how it might help local meetup groups and local
Wikimedians, and what activities a group might take on. Like Pete, I
personally tend to gravitate more towards planning events and outreach than
planning new organizations. I doubt we're alone in this; however, despite
that it's been historically difficult to keep meetup groups going in the
proposed Cascadia geography, despite high numbers of wiki-interested people
in many areas (Seattle, Portland, BC, SF all have strong collaborative tech
communities). So I wonder how a new organization might work with or help
that.

Lastly, since this is the San Francisco area list and we haven't seen a
whole lot of local activities recently: I want to remind everyone that
organizing a meetup or other activity is as simple as posting a notice
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/San_Francisco

and then letting us all know about it on the list!
Feel free to use the talk page or the list to discuss logistics and ideas,
too. I would personally love to see more activities, or just social
get-togethers, and more stuff in our greater region (the South Bay,
Sacramento!) would be cool too.

There are a lot of possibilities that *don't* require a formal organization
to pull off, and a lot of people in this group (we have a couple hundred
subscribers) who are game to do something!

cheers,
Phoebe
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Pete Forsyth]

SJ, thanks for your much better-informed post, ours crossed in the mail, I'd 
have left it to you if I knew that was coming!

To all, I would suggest you ignore my post in deference to his. I do want to 
say, I think you've misunderstood me in a couple places (probably my fault for 
not being clear) -- most significantly, it wasn't my intent to judge anyone, or 
or make assumptions about what they say; overall, I was really just trying to 
make the same point you did (that chapters are not the only way to organize), 
only I did it much less eloquently.

Again though, to all -- the best thing would probably be to ignore my post, as 
the one SJ wrote about the same time covers the issue much better.

Pete


On Dec 19, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> 
> * Chapters historically came into existence to (1) process donations in local 
> currency and (2) deal with local legal issues
> 
> I would say it is more
> (3) provide an organization that could handle local partnerships and 
> communication: with content and promotion and other targeted projects.  The 
> sort of thing that the WMF explicitly leaves to other entities, by virtue of 
> not accepting targeted donations.
>  
> * The difficulty of forming a chapter that doesn't conform to legal borders 
> has caused tension in recent years
> 
> This was feared but has not been true in practice.   (It was an issue of 
> forming an incorporated entity, period, not specific to a chapter.)  
>  
> * The WMF Board and many in the community are aware and concerned about this
> 
> Not sure...  concerned about what here?  The explicit recognition of other 
> entities was to avoid forcing groups into a narrow mould in order to be 
> recognized as a stable part of the movement.  It wasn't in response to issues 
> with geographic groups that weren't national; it was in to recognize the 
> majority of groups that are not geographic at all.
>  
> * The general solution is not so much to adapt the Chapter model to fit other 
> cases, as to establish that other cases are fine *without* carrying the name 
> "chapter".
>  
> The Wikimedia movement has a new approach to funds dissemination; being a 
> chapter is not the only way to get grants or put the name "Wikipedia" (or 
> "Wikimedia" etc.) to good use.
>  
> Yes.
> 
> In other words, just because the CHAPTERS committee
> 
> There is no longer a chapters committee; it is now the Affiliations Committee 
> :)  And please don't judge what they /might/ think; just ask them.
>  
> SJ
> ___
> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Samuel Klein]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

>
> * Chapters historically came into existence to (1) process donations in
> local currency and (2) deal with local legal issues
>

I would say it is more
(3) provide an organization that could handle local partnerships and
communication: with content and promotion and other targeted projects.  The
sort of thing that the WMF explicitly leaves to other entities, by virtue
of not accepting targeted donations.


> * The difficulty of forming a chapter that doesn't conform to legal
> borders has caused tension in recent years
>

This was feared but has not been true in practice.   (It was an issue of
forming an incorporated entity, period, not specific to a chapter.)


> * The WMF Board and many in the community are aware and concerned about
> this
>

Not sure...  concerned about what here?  The explicit recognition of other
entities was to avoid forcing groups into a narrow mould in order to be
recognized as a stable part of the movement.  It wasn't in response to
issues with geographic groups that weren't national; it was in to recognize
the majority of groups that are not geographic at all.


> * The general solution is not so much to adapt the Chapter model to fit
> other cases, as to establish that other cases are fine *without* carrying
> the name "chapter".
>

>
The Wikimedia movement has a new approach to funds dissemination; being a
> chapter is not the only way to get grants or put the name "Wikipedia" (or
> "Wikimedia" etc.) to good use.
>

Yes.

In other words, just because the CHAPTERS committee
>

There is no longer a chapters committee; it is now the Affiliations
Committee :)  And please don't judge what they /might/ think; just ask them.

SJ
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Pete Forsyth]

I think some context is in order here. I'm sure others will correct me if I 
err, but Michael, here's my understanding:

* Chapters historically came into existence to (1) process donations in local 
currency and (2) deal with local legal issues
* The difficulty of forming a chapter that doesn't conform to legal borders has 
caused tension in recent years
* The WMF Board and many in the community are aware and concerned about this
* The general solution is not so much to adapt the Chapter model to fit other 
cases, as to establish that other cases are fine *without* carrying the name 
"chapter".

The Wikimedia movement has a new approach to funds dissemination; being a 
chapter is not the only way to get grants or put the name "Wikipedia" (or 
"Wikimedia" etc.) to good use.

In other words, just because the CHAPTERS committee is lukewarm to an idea like 
this *as a Chapter*, doesn't mean it's a non-starter or undesirable.

-Pete


On Dec 19, 2012, at 4:49 PM, James Alexander wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch  wrote:
>  There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities" is an 
> irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people.
> 
> --
> Michael C. Berch
> User:MCB
> m...@postmodern.com
> 
> 
> There most certainly are legal and financial stakes. An incorporated 
> organization costs a not insignificant amount of resources and cash to 
> maintain even before they do anything at all. This is especially true when 
> you are spanning multiple diverse jurisdictions (such as states or countries) 
> and have to know at least some of the laws of each. I don't think 
> towns/cities are a major problem. I'm sure it will be an added wrinkle given 
> that the jurisdiction overlaps the foundations offices itself.
> 
> I'm not saying chapters shouldn't be allowed, just like I said above, I just 
> don't like the idea of such large ones. I don't think it's that beneficial.
> 
> James
> 
> -- 
> James Alexander
> jameso...@gmail.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Samuel Klein]

Chiming in as a former board observer on chapcom and affcom for 2 years:

I recommend any geographic group that thinks it makes sense for them to
organize more formally to discuss the idea on meta and with affcom.
 There's nothing 'wrong' with any particular geographical affiliation: in
our movement we have large city-level, region-level, national and
supra-national entities.

Some are called Chapters and occasionally vote in the 2-3 Chapter processes
that exist.  Some have other names - Iberocoop or Amical or Wikimedia
Oceania.  (no wait, that last one doesn't exist yet :)

I did not observe a particular committee stance on what can and can't
happen among subnational / regional chapters.

* There's a general desire to see national chapters where possible.
* There are lots of different views about subnational groups.
(For instance, if the US ends up with 100 subnational groups, there would
probably be a discussion about how to consolidate them at least for the
purposes of voting on global decisions.)
* Applications by regions larger than cities would probably be fine - write
about the idea on meta and ask for feedback.
* Applications by a national group that has a specific idea of how it would
work with the existing subnational groups, including subnational chapters,
would also be fine
* Applications or general discussions about supranational groups such as
Iberocoop and Wikimedia-Asia are also of interest to affcom; both that
model and the chapter model are things that groups across the US could
consider.

My personal view is that large chapters are fine, and some have been quite
successful.  The determining factor in [chapter/affiliate] success is the
quality and coherence and vision of its team, not its geography.

SJ

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Michael C. Berch wrote:

> Why on earth should there be arbitrary and restrictive rules about the
> geographical composition of local chapters of an informal volunteer
> organization?  There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of
> "municipalities" is an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy
> people.
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[James Alexander]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch wrote:

>  There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities" is
> an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people.
>
> --
> Michael C. Berch
> User:MCB
> m...@postmodern.com
>
>
There most certainly are legal and financial stakes. An incorporated
organization costs a not insignificant amount of resources and cash to
maintain even before they do anything at all. This is especially true when
you are spanning multiple diverse jurisdictions (such as states or
countries) and have to know at least some of the laws of each. I don't
think towns/cities are a major problem. I'm sure it will be an added
wrinkle given that the jurisdiction overlaps the foundations offices itself.

I'm not saying chapters shouldn't be allowed, just like I said above, I
just don't like the idea of such large ones. I don't think it's
that beneficial.

James

-- 
James Alexander
jameso...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Michael C. Berch]

[Original poster:]
> In the past, I have informally asked Chapter Committee members about the 
> possibility of a chapter like this. I was told with no equivocation that 
> chapters which officially spanned multiple municipalities were forbidden, and 
> that we could have a Wikimedia Oregon, Washington, or California only because 
> we would have to pick a state in which to become officially incorporated in 
> and be responsible for. 

I have to say, this is the kind of nonsense that has personally caused me to 
reduce my participation in Wikipedia and gives the organization an unfriendly 
reputation on the Net and discourages new members. 

Why on earth should there be arbitrary and restrictive rules about the 
geographical composition of local chapters of an informal volunteer 
organization?  There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of 
"municipalities" is an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy 
people.  

-- 
Michael C. Berch
User:MCB
m...@postmodern.com
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Pete Forsyth]

Pine, yes, this really is a key to success -- I think you've nailed it. If an 
organization (no matter whether official, unofficial, national, regional, etc.) 
presents itself as "representing" anybody, there's going to be friction. If it 
presents (and genuinely thinks of itself) as a "resource" to support regional 
activity, all should go well.

There is an increasing amount of activity in this area, and I think that's a 
good thing. I'm not personally motivated to put energy into forming a legal 
entity, and like Sarah don't have a lot of interest in IRC meetings unless 
there's a pretty strong commitment to putting everyone's time to good use, but 
if others want to go down that path that seems fine to me.

Personally, I'm much more interested in putting my energy into actual 
activities -- edit-a-thons, Wiknics, WLL, etc. If we get to the point where the 
lack of an organizing entity seems to be hindering such efforts, that might 
change my perspective, but at the moment it seems there's a lot that can be 
accomplished without getting lawyers or the IRS involved.

Pete


On Dec 19, 2012, at 4:05 PM, ENWP Pine wrote:

> My understanding is that Wikimedia Cascada's existence is largely for the 
> purpose of coordinating and supporting activities that will happen within its 
> boarders. It is not formed for the purpose of "representing" all Wikimedians 
> within a geographic area. 
> 
> That said, I invite you to bring up this issue for discussion on the Meta 
> talk page so that there's opportunity for broader participation. (:
> 
> Pine
> 
> From: jameso...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:52:38 -0800
> To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight
> 
> To be honest, at some level, yes If I lived in Vancouver and most of 
> WM-Canada's work and board meetings wtc were centered in Toronto I would have 
> zero interest in joining and would generally object to them claiming to 
> represent me as an editor within their borders. I would also object to them 
> having exclusive rights to use the name in those borders. The same is not 
> necessarily true for say me living in Edinburgh and going to occasionally 
> going to WMUK meetings in London given that it's 1/4 the distance. I'd 
> probably still object to them representing me as an editor especially if I 
> wasn't a member but that's a completely different issue since I don't think 
> chapters should ever be about 'representation' .
> 
> I'm a strong advocate for the benefit of subnational chapters especially in 
> larger countries, I think places like WMNYC and WMDC are better overall for 
> the movement and those around them. I think that's especially true in the US 
> where we've already started having sub national chapters. I'd be fine with a 
> CA chapter (or an OR one and possibly if enough from both OR and WA wanted to 
> merge or something like that but I don't think it's that necessary ). I'd be 
> even more fine with a norcal/SF based or socal/LA based chapter if there was 
> a need. That's another important point, we create incorporated orgs like 
> crazy for some reason when they are frequently going to be just fine as a 
> user group especially now that we have user groups being created as examples 
> in the Mediawiki user groups. We now have a process to use the marks and the 
> names etc without incorporating, incorporating costs not insignificant money 
> time and resources every year before it does any good and should not be done 
> until it's necessary.
> 
> I know that this is billed as a 'larger chapter that can break down into 
> smaller chapters if people want' but I don't think that's very fair. I think 
> it inhibits the growth of smaller chapters (which I think are better) and it 
> will end up requiring the larger chapter to approve the fork/new chapter 
> which should in no way be the case. 
> 
> James
> 
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM, ENWP Pine  wrote:
> Hmmm.
> 
> Steven, we have Wikimedia Canada, which is larger than Cascadia and includes 
> multiple provinces. If the Chapters Committee approved Wikimedia Canada then 
> I'm not sure how they could cite geography as a reason against a Wikimedia 
> Cascadia with the exception of overlap into another nation's territory.
> 
> James, would you also have opposed Wikimedia Canada on the same grounds that 
> you cite here?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pine
> 
> From: jameso...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:59:41 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight
> To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.o

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[ENWP Pine]

My understanding is that Wikimedia Cascada's existence is largely for the 
purpose of coordinating and supporting activities that will happen within its 
boarders. It is not formed for the purpose of "representing" all Wikimedians 
within a geographic area. 

That said, I invite you to bring up this issue for discussion on the Meta talk 
page so that there's opportunity for broader participation. (:

Pine

From: jameso...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:52:38 -0800
To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

To be honest, at some level, yes If I lived in Vancouver and most of 
WM-Canada's work and board meetings wtc were centered in Toronto I would have 
zero interest in joining and would generally object to them claiming to 
represent me as an editor within their borders. I would also object to them 
having exclusive rights to use the name in those borders. The same is not 
necessarily true for say me living in Edinburgh and going to occasionally going 
to WMUK meetings in London given that it's 1/4 the distance. I'd probably still 
object to them representing me as an editor especially if I wasn't a member but 
that's a completely different issue since I don't think chapters should ever be 
about 'representation' .


I'm a strong advocate for the benefit of subnational chapters especially in 
larger countries, I think places like WMNYC and WMDC are better overall for the 
movement and those around them. I think that's especially true in the US where 
we've already started having sub national chapters. I'd be fine with a CA 
chapter (or an OR one and possibly if enough from both OR and WA wanted to 
merge or something like that but I don't think it's that necessary ). I'd be 
even more fine with a norcal/SF based or socal/LA based chapter if there was a 
need. That's another important point, we create incorporated orgs like crazy 
for some reason when they are frequently going to be just fine as a user group 
especially now that we have user groups being created as examples in the 
Mediawiki user groups. We now have a process to use the marks and the names etc 
without incorporating, incorporating costs not insignificant money time and 
resources every year before it does any good and should not be done until it's 
necessary.


I know that this is billed as a 'larger chapter that can break down into 
smaller chapters if people want' but I don't think that's very fair. I think it 
inhibits the growth of smaller chapters (which I think are better) and it will 
end up requiring the larger chapter to approve the fork/new chapter which 
should in no way be the case. 


James

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM, ENWP Pine  wrote:





Hmmm.

Steven, we have Wikimedia Canada, which is larger than Cascadia and includes 
multiple provinces. If the Chapters Committee approved Wikimedia Canada then 
I'm not sure how they could cite geography as a reason against a Wikimedia 
Cascadia with the exception of overlap into another nation's territory.



James, would you also have opposed Wikimedia Canada on the same grounds that 
you cite here?

Thanks,

Pine

From: jameso...@gmail.com


Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:59:41 -0800
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight
To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org


CC: deyntest...@hotmail.com

Also not totally sure If I'll be able to make it or not but have generally made 
my belief known that broad spanding chapters like this are not a good idea 
overall. In addition to the concerns from Steven below I just think that the 
requirements and desires of groups in Alaska, Oregon, California etc are too 
different. Yes I know that there are large countries with single chapters but 
even there the work is really generally segregated to one area of the country 
and not the whole place. I would be strongly against a chapter this big but a 
user group of people interested is  fine.




James 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Steven Walling  
wrote:


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine  wrote:






Tonight in #wikimedia-us at 6 PM Pacific will be the next Wikimedia US meeting. 
Included on the agenda is discussion of the proposed Wikimedia Cascadia chapter.







Possible geography for the Chapter includes California, Oregon, Washington, 
Idaho, Montana, and Alaska until such time as some of these areas have more 
localized chapters. Also under discussion is asking WM-Canada to share British 
Columbia with WM-Cascadia.







Please join the discussion in #wikimedia-us, 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia, and/or 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Cascadia.







Anyone who is interested in discussing a potential chapter that would include 
the Bay area, please join the discussion!

Pine


I may not be able to make it, but w

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Steven Walling]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM, ENWP Pine  wrote:

> Steven, we have Wikimedia Canada, which is larger than Cascadia and
> includes multiple provinces.


Yes, chapters can be on the national level. Most are. The theory from the
Committee goes that you can have a country *or* a lower level form of
municipality like state, province, or city. But you can't span multiplie
countries, and you can't spread out across a selection of subnational
munincipalities.

To be clear: I'm not opposed to the idea of a Cascadia group of
Wikimedians. I'm very much favor of it. I'm just warning you about what
I've heard about the bureaucratic limitations imposed on official chapters.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Sarah Stierch]

On 12/19/12 3:52 PM, James Alexander wrote:
To be honest, at some level, yes If I lived in Vancouver and most of 
WM-Canada's work and board meetings wtc were centered in Toronto I 
would have zero interest in joining and would generally object to them 
claiming to represent me as an editor within their borders. I would 
also object to them having exclusive rights to use the name in those 
borders. The same is not necessarily true for say me living in 
Edinburgh and going to occasionally going to WMUK meetings in London 
given that it's 1/4 the distance. I'd probably still object to them 
representing me as an editor especially if I wasn't a member but 
that's a completely different issue since I don't think chapters 
should ever be about 'representation' .


I also agree with James (especially on a cultural standpoint - I'm 
curious if the Francophones or the Scots have different feelings re: 
Chapter just simply based on cultural differences from English speakers 
(or the Welsh...etc).


Different cities and states have different needs. I remember when WM DC 
said they were going to be representing Wikimedians in West Virginia, 
Maryland, and other regional states, and I heard some pretty negative 
things from Wikipedians from those states. What's of different value for 
a Wikimedian from WV might be of different value of a Wikimedian from 
DC, perhaps.




I'm a strong advocate for the benefit of subnational chapters 
especially in larger countries, I think places like WMNYC and WMDC are 
better overall for the movement and those around them. I think that's 
especially true in the US where we've already started having sub 
national chapters. I'd be fine with a CA chapter (or an OR one and 
possibly if enough from both OR and WA wanted to merge or something 
like that but I don't think it's that necessary ). I'd be even more 
fine with a norcal/SF based or socal/LA based chapter if there was a 
need. That's another important point, we create incorporated orgs like 
crazy for some reason when they are frequently going to be just fine 
as a user group especially now that we have user groups being created 
as examples in the Mediawiki user groups. We now have a process to use 
the marks and the names etc without incorporating, incorporating costs 
not insignificant money time and resources every year before it does 
any good and should not be done until it's necessary.


I'm still open to forming a California or Northern California chapter. 
It's just going to take someone else to spearhead the process. Then, as 
you suggested, having a larger unofficial organization that perhaps 
supports a larger national gathering, cross-state events, etc.


I can't make it to the meeting either, due to previous obligations. (I 
also really am deterred by on-IRC meetings at this point in my life..)


Sarah

--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/*
>>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today 
<<
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[James Alexander]

To be honest, at some level, yes If I lived in Vancouver and most of
WM-Canada's work and board meetings wtc were centered in Toronto I would
have zero interest in joining and would generally object to them claiming
to represent me as an editor within their borders. I would also object to
them having exclusive rights to use the name in those borders. The same is
not necessarily true for say me living in Edinburgh and going
to occasionally going to WMUK meetings in London given that it's 1/4 the
distance. I'd probably still object to them representing me as an editor
especially if I wasn't a member but that's a completely different issue
since I don't think chapters should ever be about 'representation' .

I'm a strong advocate for the benefit of subnational chapters especially in
larger countries, I think places like WMNYC and WMDC are better overall for
the movement and those around them. I think that's especially true in the
US where we've already started having sub national chapters. I'd be fine
with a CA chapter (or an OR one and possibly if enough from both OR and WA
wanted to merge or something like that but I don't think it's that
necessary ). I'd be even more fine with a norcal/SF based or socal/LA based
chapter if there was a need. That's another important point, we create
incorporated orgs like crazy for some reason when they are frequently going
to be just fine as a user group especially now that we have user groups
being created as examples in the Mediawiki user groups. We now have a
process to use the marks and the names etc without incorporating,
incorporating costs not insignificant money time and resources every year
before it does any good and should not be done until it's necessary.

I know that this is billed as a 'larger chapter that can break down into
smaller chapters if people want' but I don't think that's very fair. I
think it inhibits the growth of smaller chapters (which I think are better)
and it will end up requiring the larger chapter to approve the fork/new
chapter which should in no way be the case.

James

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM, ENWP Pine  wrote:

> Hmmm.
>
> Steven, we have Wikimedia Canada, which is larger than Cascadia and
> includes multiple provinces. If the Chapters Committee approved Wikimedia
> Canada then I'm not sure how they could cite geography as a reason against
> a Wikimedia Cascadia with the exception of overlap into another nation's
> territory.
>
> James, would you also have opposed Wikimedia Canada on the same grounds
> that you cite here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
> --
> From: jameso...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:59:41 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight
> To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org
> CC: deyntest...@hotmail.com
>
>
> Also not totally sure If I'll be able to make it or not but have generally
> made my belief known that broad spanding chapters like this are not a good
> idea overall. In addition to the concerns from Steven below I just think
> that the requirements and desires of groups in Alaska, Oregon, California
> etc are too different. Yes I know that there are large countries with
> single chapters but even there the work is really generally segregated to
> one area of the country and not the whole place. I would be strongly
> against a chapter this big but a user group of people interested is
>  fine.
>
> James
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine wrote:
>
> Tonight in #wikimedia-us at 6 PM Pacific will be the next Wikimedia US
> meeting. Included on the agenda is discussion of the proposed Wikimedia
> Cascadia chapter.
>
> Possible geography for the Chapter includes California, Oregon,
> Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska until such time as some of these
> areas have more localized chapters. Also under discussion is asking
> WM-Canada to share British Columbia with WM-Cascadia.
>
> Please join the discussion in #wikimedia-us,
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia, and/or
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Cascadia.
>
> Anyone who is interested in discussing a potential chapter that would
> include the Bay area, please join the discussion!
>
> Pine
>
>
> I may not be able to make it, but wanted to express interest and bring up
> one point of discussion...
>
> In the past, I have informally asked Chapter Committee members about the
> possibility of a chapter like this. I was told with no equivocation that
> chapters which officially spanned multiple municipalities were forbidden,
> and that we could have a Wikimedia Oregon,

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[ENWP Pine]

Hmmm.

Steven, we have Wikimedia Canada, which is larger than Cascadia and includes 
multiple provinces. If the Chapters Committee approved Wikimedia Canada then 
I'm not sure how they could cite geography as a reason against a Wikimedia 
Cascadia with the exception of overlap into another nation's territory.

James, would you also have opposed Wikimedia Canada on the same grounds that 
you cite here?

Thanks,

Pine

From: jameso...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:59:41 -0800
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight
To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org
CC: deyntest...@hotmail.com

Also not totally sure If I'll be able to make it or not but have generally made 
my belief known that broad spanding chapters like this are not a good idea 
overall. In addition to the concerns from Steven below I just think that the 
requirements and desires of groups in Alaska, Oregon, California etc are too 
different. Yes I know that there are large countries with single chapters but 
even there the work is really generally segregated to one area of the country 
and not the whole place. I would be strongly against a chapter this big but a 
user group of people interested is  fine.


James 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Steven Walling  
wrote:


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine  wrote:




Tonight in #wikimedia-us at 6 PM Pacific will be the next Wikimedia US meeting. 
Included on the agenda is discussion of the proposed Wikimedia Cascadia chapter.





Possible geography for the Chapter includes California, Oregon, Washington, 
Idaho, Montana, and Alaska until such time as some of these areas have more 
localized chapters. Also under discussion is asking WM-Canada to share British 
Columbia with WM-Cascadia.





Please join the discussion in #wikimedia-us, 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia, and/or 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Cascadia.





Anyone who is interested in discussing a potential chapter that would include 
the Bay area, please join the discussion!

Pine


I may not be able to make it, but wanted to express interest and bring up one 
point of discussion... 
In the past, I have informally asked Chapter Committee members about the 
possibility of a chapter like this. I was told with no equivocation that 
chapters which officially spanned multiple municipalities were forbidden, and 
that we could have a Wikimedia Oregon, Washington, or California only because 
we would have to pick a state in which to become officially incorporated in and 
be responsible for. 




My suggestion would be to avoid seeking official chapter status, and instead 
form a group like Wikimedia Cascadia as a user group or thematic organization. 




Steven 

___

Wikimedia-SF mailing list

Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf




-- 
James alexanderjameso...@gmail.com

  ___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[James Alexander]

Also not totally sure If I'll be able to make it or not but have generally
made my belief known that broad spanding chapters like this are not a good
idea overall. In addition to the concerns from Steven below I just think
that the requirements and desires of groups in Alaska, Oregon, California
etc are too different. Yes I know that there are large countries with
single chapters but even there the work is really generally segregated to
one area of the country and not the whole place. I would be strongly
against a chapter this big but a user group of people interested is
 fine.

James

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Steven Walling wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine wrote:
>
>> Tonight in #wikimedia-us at 6 PM Pacific will be the next Wikimedia US
>> meeting. Included on the agenda is discussion of the proposed Wikimedia
>> Cascadia chapter.
>>
>> Possible geography for the Chapter includes California, Oregon,
>> Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska until such time as some of these
>> areas have more localized chapters. Also under discussion is asking
>> WM-Canada to share British Columbia with WM-Cascadia.
>>
>> Please join the discussion in #wikimedia-us,
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia, and/or
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Cascadia.
>>
>> Anyone who is interested in discussing a potential chapter that would
>> include the Bay area, please join the discussion!
>>
>> Pine
>>
>
> I may not be able to make it, but wanted to express interest and bring up
> one point of discussion...
>
> In the past, I have informally asked Chapter Committee members about the
> possibility of a chapter like this. I was told with no equivocation that
> chapters which officially spanned multiple municipalities were forbidden,
> and that we could have a Wikimedia Oregon, Washington, or California only
> because we would have to pick a state in which to become officially
> incorporated in and be responsible for.
>
> My suggestion would be to avoid seeking official chapter status, and
> instead form a group like Wikimedia Cascadia as a user group or thematic
> organization.
>
> Steven
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-SF mailing list
> Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
>
>


-- 
James Alexander
jameso...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

[Steven Walling]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine  wrote:

> Tonight in #wikimedia-us at 6 PM Pacific will be the next Wikimedia US
> meeting. Included on the agenda is discussion of the proposed Wikimedia
> Cascadia chapter.
>
> Possible geography for the Chapter includes California, Oregon,
> Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska until such time as some of these
> areas have more localized chapters. Also under discussion is asking
> WM-Canada to share British Columbia with WM-Cascadia.
>
> Please join the discussion in #wikimedia-us,
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia, and/or
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Cascadia.
>
> Anyone who is interested in discussing a potential chapter that would
> include the Bay area, please join the discussion!
>
> Pine
>

I may not be able to make it, but wanted to express interest and bring up
one point of discussion...

In the past, I have informally asked Chapter Committee members about the
possibility of a chapter like this. I was told with no equivocation that
chapters which officially spanned multiple municipalities were forbidden,
and that we could have a Wikimedia Oregon, Washington, or California only
because we would have to pick a state in which to become officially
incorporated in and be responsible for.

My suggestion would be to avoid seeking official chapter status, and
instead form a group like Wikimedia Cascadia as a user group or thematic
organization.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf