I'm familiar with user groups that operate on $0 funding levels. Here in Portland there is the Portland Linux/UNIX Group (aka PLUG), which has operated for years with no real source of money -- just volunteer labor & donated server resources & using public spaces to meet in. For years it was vital to more than the few of us interested in Linux & UNIX, because it was one of the venues people interested in technology could meet & exchange ideas. PLUG was one reason O'Reilly held their Open Source Conferences in Portland for several years. (One restaurant in downtown Portland liked to host our meetings because it brought in more customers than their Monday Night Football specials.) Nevertheless, the man who led PLUG, David Mandell, was well informed about how important being an incorporated non-profit was, & had ownership of the incorporation papers for another, now defunct, non-profit for the time it made sense that PLUG become a more formal organization.
My concern in my previous email was that all of the labor & money to become a non-profit was about to be wasted because someone had decided to drop out without completing the paperwork to keep the Cascadia UG in good standing, both with the Foundation & the State of Washington. Maybe at the moment the Cascadia UG doesn't need to be a formal group; that's fine. However, there are certain benefits to being a formal organization. Saying that one is a member of a formal group opens certain doors that saying, "I'm a Wikimedian & I make edits to this Wiki" doesn't. Another benefit is that if one needs money to do something, having a formal organization to handle the grants or contributions makes life much less complex.
Lane, so if missing a report this year isn't going to sabotage the Cascadia UG, that relieves a lot of worry on everyone's part. Although I believe it would be good for all in the long run if someone from the Foundation were to explain to the person involved that while a volunteer can walk away from any of the projects at any time with very little effort, there are certain responsibilities in life that when assumed one cannot just walk away from before they are done. And the financial reporting is one of them. Especially when, in your words, it requires a couple of hours a year of work.
One reason I want a Cascadia UG -- or a US Wikimedia Chapter, or some kind of formal group in North America -- is that it provides a sense of community that an online Wiki fails to provide. For one thing, it's been documented that a healthy online community flourishes when there are a lot of off-line back-channels. Another is that IMHO a lot of Wikipedians would be more interested in advocacy or partnering with outside groups if they knew of similar work being done near them; not everyone is eager to be a solo pioneer setting off into unexplored territory with no one to support or even be aware of their work. Sometimes we simply want to share one of the minor successes in making a contribution to Wikipedia (or a similar Wikimedia project). The other week I shared with my wife a success in getting one of my articles on Roman consuls figured out, only to have her blandly reply, "So?" And there's a large amount of unwritten knowledge around the Wikimedia projects that either is not documented online, or will never be documented online, that each of us knows; sharing it would only benefit us all.
I'd also like to hear more about what my fellow Wikimedians are doing. Even if it's unrelated to outreach or advocacy. Boast a little on this mailing list. Especially since there's no good place on any of the Wikis to do this, & we all need to brag a little once in a while. IMHO, doing that can inspire others to take on tasks that need doing.
In other words, anyone who spends more than a little time away from the computer working on a Wikimedia project knows that such activity is socially isolating. This UG could address that issue to some degree. And this is why I find watching the Cascadia UG fall apart over a trivial matter discouraging.
P.S. To Jason -- Pete Forsyth & I met the other week & were discussing ideas about outreach & how to support Wikimedians in ways the Foundation either won't do, or is unwilling to do. You should join us in our next discussion. One reason I'd like to restart Wikimeetups here in Portland.
Geoff Burling en: llywrch
On 2018-03-14 09:11, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
Agree with Lane and Joe that we should keep this going since it's easy and valuable. I know I'm not that active, but as long as we're talking about doing what's necessary to keep the organization afloat, rather than active program management and administration, I am happy to use my convenient dual staff/volunteer role to attempt to expedite any necessary communication or coordination stuff between Cascadia and WMF. Let me know.
- J
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com wrote:
Hello,
Pine, I think that you have much higher personal standards for Wiki Cascadia than the Washington Secretary of State has for organizations or than the Wiki Affiliations Committee has for official partner organizations. When you were on the board you set ambitious goals for Wiki Cascadia. Even now with its challenges it ranks favorably against other registered wiki groups, being easily among the top 50%, likely in the top 25%, and perhaps in the top 10%. Most wiki user groups are casual operations and I feel that Wiki Cascadia already accomplishes beyond the norm. I am happy with the ongoing activities of Wiki Cascadia.
llywrch - typical Cascadia group events are organized by committees of 2-4 people. The board does not centrally review programs, and instead provides a centralized project space for announcing and reporting any events which are aligned with typical wiki community interests. Wiki Cascadia teams have done some interesting and innovative projects but nothing that I would call radical and in need of thorough oversight. Almost anyone engaged in any wiki project in the region can affiliate with Wiki Cascadia if they like. This governance format is usual for wiki user groups at the ~$0 funding level.
If there is any winding down ever, then probably winding down WMF affiliation would come before disbanding as a nonprofit because the WMF has higher standards for reporting than the state government. If Wiki Cascadia stays in good standing with the WMF then it can meet the lower expectations of the state government.
The administrative burden for an organization with near 0 budget is about 2 hours/year from the perspective of the Washington Secretary of state. If there are challenges with this then the answer is to pass the work on through the network of Wiki Cascadia supporters. While I personally have been hands-off for administration, I see a lot of value in the organization, and am here to help sustain the organization and identify other board members if there is a crisis and the organization needs some support. There are other people like me who care and would support if asked.
I anticipate being in Seattle in mid-April and would meet with anyone to talk about next steps. My schedule is not yet firm, but to the extent that I am able I would show support. There are always ways that I and others would support remotely.
Thanks,
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
I haven't heard anything from Peacray about this in awhile. However, he appears to be active on English Wikipedia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peaceray), so I suggest that you ask him on his talk page.
The impression that I get is that he and Brian lack the time and interest to continue with the Cascadia organization, and if that is the case and no one else is interested and willing to keep the organization alive, then the organization should be wound down and any remaining assets (like the camera and camcorder) should be handled in the manner that's specified in the bylaws:
"ARTICLE XIV - DISSOLUTION "Vote Required. The Corporation may be dissolved by a two-thirds vote of the Board. "Donation of Remaining Assets. Upon the termination, dissolution or final liquidation of the Corporation in any manner or for any reason, its assets, if any, remaining after payment (or provision for payment) of all liabilities of the Corporation, shall be distributed to, and only to, one or more organizations organized and operated exclusively for charitable or educational purposes as shall at the time qualify as an exempt organization or organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code as the Board shall determine by majority vote. Such distribution of assets shall be calculated to carry out the objectives and purposes stated in the Articles of Incorporation. In no event shall any of such assets or property be distributed to any member, Director or Officer, or any private individual." I wish that I had better news. :(
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Joe Mabel jmabel@speakeasy.net wrote: It's mid-March. Has something been filed without the Board having a chance to review? Or has nothing been filed?
JM
On 1/30/2018 8:16 AM, Joe Mabel wrote:
Is anything happening on this?
JM
On 12/29/2017 9:40 AM, Raymond Leonard wrote:
Joe & all,
I am still working on this. Right now I have a $16.49 discrepancy
that
I need to figure out before it will balance.
Yours, Peaceray -- raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Joe & all, I've been preoccupied with holiday activities w/family & friends
since
the annual meeting, & I am currently in Portland. I will be
returning
to Seattle this afternoon & will work on this, hoping to complete by tomorrow morning at the latest.
Peaceray
raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 9:56 PM Joe Mabel jmabel@speakeasy.net
wrote:
At the annual meeting we were told that the financial statement
would
be available in time for Board members to review it before the end of
the
year and sign off. I realize we are just coming out of a holiday,
but
there are only 5 days remaining in the year, 2 of which are another holiday weekend. If the report has been posted, I don't see where. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_Wikimedians/2017_report
still
says "To be posted."
JM
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
-- Sent from Gmail Mobile
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia