Hello,
+1 for discretion in discussing board matters. All wiki user group
organizers get anxious about keeping to the schedule so there is nothing
unusual about that. The WMF asks indiscriminately and without much
consideration for volunteers for a lot more than they actually accept as
sufficient, and it can be intimidating to look at groups with large budgets
and imagine that the same expectations apply to groups with no paid staff.
While Wiki Cascadia does not meet the administrative standards of
organizations with paid staff, the this team performs well by wiki or small
nonprofit standards.
@Peaceray - the reporting which the WMF requires is at
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports>
The expectations change year to year, but the norm that I perceive is that
they do require a year end financial statement, and they want a few
sentences summarizing chapter activities with a sign off from the board.
When wiki groups do more, the next level of report development is creating
a list of events and programs. The step beyond that is making items in that
list into links which give event reports. Anyone who sets up an event
announcement page and gets people to sign their names there to register is
already doing beyond the norm for a team on Wiki Cascadia's budget.
To report to the Washington Secretary of State the report is the financial
again and also a confirmation of board members and their addresses. If the
board is the same and the financials are reported to the WMF then this
could take 15 minutes online - I have done this and found it easy.
@llywrch - Wiki Cascadia has to get the report in. There is not talk of
missing it, even if it is on a flexible schedule. I would join Wiki
Cascadia strategy discussions with you, Pete, Jason, anyone. The reasons
you list for having a user group matter to me also. Personally, I get a lot
out of my affiliation with Wiki Cascadia.
Wiki NYC struggles with administration also. I could offer that if anyone
in Wiki Cascadia wants to collaborate, one possible path could be to join
the Wiki NYC slack channel. Some discussions might not be relevant, but
Wiki NYC is big enough to be forming committees. For example, the
partnership committee discusses best practices for partnerships with
institutions, and the membership committee discusses how to track and keep
members engaged. Many of these problems might be too big for any one
chapter or user group, and maybe interested people around the US could join
these conversations together and collectively take credit for all outcomes.
Anyone wanting to do this would have to float it by Wiki NYC but for now
the slack channel is at
. I cannot scale up to
support everyone but I know everyone who has posted here and I am happy to
talk 1:1 with any of you by video, phone, email, etc. I also would join any
group chats.
Thanks,
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Raymond Leonard <
raymond.f.leonard.jr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Of course, it was just a few minutes after I sent my
email that I saw that
what we posted for 2014-2015
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_Wikimedians/4Q_
2014_and_CY_2015_report#Finance_report>
.
Peaceray
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Raymond Leonard <
raymond.f.leonard.jr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Folks,
First I apologize for the delay in the financial report. I have sent to
the Cascadia Wikimedians board a spreadsheet detailing the activity on
our
three BECU accounts & a balance sheet. It
requires some tweaking. There
are
some two deposits for $210 & a check for $20
for which I was unable to
glean their source / destination. I am hoping our Treasurer can fill the
board in on those items on that email thread. If anyone wants to see the
spreadsheet, let me know & I can forward it to them as well.
I am somewhat flummoxed that an internal matter to the board & the
Cascadia Wikimedians membership has been discussed on this much broader
list. I am all for transparency, but I think a delayed report got far
more
attention than was warranted. It is certainly
absurd to contemplate the
dissolution of the organization because of it.
As far as the comment that I "lack the time and interest to continue with
the Cascadia organization", I would point to my recent activities on
behalf
of Cascadia Wikimedians: my presence at the
Art+Feminism edit-a-thon at
the
Jacob Lawrence Gallery & my attendance at a
UW class that Amanda Menking
teaches, both in late February, plus online attendance & support earlier
this month at the Portland Art+Feminism edit-a-thon concentrating on
Jewish
women artists (although I ended up helping other
edit-a-thons; it was
International Women's Day, after all). I am also attending the Wikimedia
Conference 2018 in Berlin as one of the two Cascadia Wikimedians
representatives.
I may have different view as to the criteria & priorities about how a
user
group functions than some, & am certainly
flexible about adjusting those
in
concert with anyone who is part of the team
actively supporting Cascadia
Wikimedians.
Now, I need some help in determining where to put the report when finally
finished. I do not see where Wikimedia NYC puts their financial reports
(I
don't think it is on meta). I see that
Wikimedia DC had put some on meta
several years back. What repositories are other user groups using for
spreadsheets? I am thinking that it would be appropriate to place a more
general balance sheet on meta.
Yours,
Peaceray
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:25 PM, <gburling(a)hevanet.com> wrote:
> 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Raymond Leonard <
raymond.f.leonard.jr(a)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(a)gmail.com
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 9:56 PM Joe
Mabel <jmabel(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
> -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
lane(a)bluerasberry.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
lane(a)bluerasberry.com