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. (:


Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:52:38 -0800
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 

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. 


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. 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?




Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:59:41 -0800
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight


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 <shrugs> fine.


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, 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,, and/or

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


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. 



Wikimedia-SF mailing list




Wikimedia-SF mailing list


Wikimedia-SF mailing list                       
Wikimedia-SF mailing list

Reply via email to