Community,
I was reading some of the discussion surrounding chapters, particularly a chapter residing in the United States. As people have mentioned before there are some issues to address in founding such a chapter, but I believe I've come up with a proposal that helps deal with such issues. I look forward to feedback.
The main issue with a US chapter is the size of the United States. While in Europe, it is common for people to travel by rail and oftentimes see other parts of the country, the US lacks such a well-designed public transportation system. Driving from Florida to New York is quite a trip, not even thinking about the trip across country. Trains in the US are overpriced and slow; not to mention their slowly dying popularity as a transportation mechanism. Flying is cost-prohibitive to the majority of Americans. This presents us with a curious issue: How to coordinate a nationwide chapter when meeting people from other parts of the country is so difficult? The suggest has come up for state chapters, but this presents two issues in and of themselves.
1) What do you do for areas like NYC? It would be much easier to coordinate a chapter for its metropolitan area as opposed to "New York State Chapter" or "New Jersey Chapter." For this, I would suggest we have a fairly fluid system of allowing chapters to form. While a "Virginia" chapter might not be workable, a DC Metropolitan Area one would work (2 hours is not unreasonable for me to drive for a meeting, at least). This brings us to our second issue:
2) Representation. If we allow per-state or per-region chapters, how much of a say do each of them have in the Foundation? Is each state given a voice? For this, I would say that the US gets *one* voice, much as the German chapter is given *one* voice, or any of the others. While this creates a logistical issue (how do many chapters present 1 voice?), I believe it will create a system in which US Wikimedians can have chapters to organize, without fear of over-representation in WMF issues.
The only final issue I've seen is that of funding. Who do you donate to? Does an American donate to the WMF or to the local American Chapter? In Germany, this isn't as much of an issue (as, if I understand this right, non-profit money raised in Germany must be used *in* Germany, so WM DE cannot send money to the US WMF. Someone correct me if I'm terribly wrong here). As a proposal, I would say this: money donated to the Foundation is clearly earmarked for them as such. It goes to servers, salaries, etc., the same as it always has. WM US would need to simply make it known and understood that money donated to them would be for the sole purpose of facilitating WM US activities, and not to the Foundation. This would help keep the issue of "where is my donation going" from being so muddled.
If in fact we are going to have Chapter-based seats and they are considered community seats, we need to insure that our community remains enfranchised and the first step to that is facilitating chapters in the countries that do not have them. Up until now, there has been no definitive progress towards a US-based chapter, but I think I've come up with a decent compromise we can work with. I look forward to other ideas.
Always, Chad
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
- What do you do for areas like NYC? It would be much easier to
coordinate a chapter for its metropolitan area as opposed to "New York State Chapter" or "New Jersey Chapter." For this, I would suggest we have a fairly fluid system of allowing chapters to form. While a "Virginia" chapter might not be workable, a DC Metropolitan Area one would work (2 hours is not unreasonable for me to drive for a meeting, at least). This brings us to our second issue:
My personal opinion on the matter is that a fluid system like this is probably the best. Consider this multipart solution: 1) Chapters can form along any boundary (metropolitan, state) so long as they do not overlap with other chapters. 2) All chapters must include a clause in their bylaws that they will merge into larger chapters, as "sections" if a larger chapter is formed. So, WMF Philadelphia and WMF Pittsburgh would be forced to merge into WMF PA, if the state chapter was organized and approved. This allows local efforts to get the ball rolling, but also shows preference towards more a more mature model of state-based and eventually nation-based chapters.
This kind of model is helped by US tax exemption doctrines which, as I learned today from Pharos, states that a sub-organization does not need to incorporate separately as a non-profit if it is a local section of a larger tax-exempt non-profit. For all intents and purposes, US subnational chapters and sections could simply be considered autonomous membership sub-organizations of the WMF itself.
- Representation. If we allow per-state or per-region chapters, how much
of a say do each of them have in the Foundation? Is each state given a voice? For this, I would say that the US gets *one* voice, much as the German chapter is given *one* voice, or any of the others.
If you take the view that subnational chapters are really "sections" of a virtual national chapter that does not yet explicitly exist, this becomes a non-issue. Contrariwise, if we consider that sufferage is granted based on membership, a US national chapter will have the same "voice" that 50 smaller subnational chapters would have. Finding that single "voice" would be a logistical matter to handle separately.
The only final issue I've seen is that of funding. Who do you donate to? Does an American donate to the WMF or to the local American Chapter? As a proposal, I would say this: money donated
There are a number of ways to handle this. First, consider that the WMF and WMF USA would hold different fundraisers. All monies collected during the WMF fundraiser would go to the WMF. All donations made to the WMF go to the WMF, including donations brokered by WMF USA on behalf of the WMF. Assuming we understand that WMF USA is a sub-organization to the WMF, it should be possible to move money from one to the other easily, in times of need.
Consider also that the general level of donations should increase with an increase in on-the-ground volunteers. The WMF is currently looking to fill a single paid position for a person to find and manage donations. Volunteer members of WMF USA could spend hundreds or thousands of man hours organizing fund raisers, soliciting donations from people who otherwise would not have donated, etc. With more of an on-the-ground presence, the WMF should expect an increase in donation revenues, not a decrease because of sharing concerns.
Up until now, there has been no definitive progress towards a US-based chapter
Wrong, there has been plenty of progress, as much as is possible with the current roadblocks in place. If it were possible to create a new US-based subnational chapter, I estimate that there would be at least one created already, and up to half a dozen seriously in the works. It's not that nobody is organizing, it's that these groups are being told "Sorry, but we can't accept applications from you yet because nobody knows what's going on in the US". Remove the roadblocks, and progress will become self-evident.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Up until now, there has been no definitive progress towards a US-based chapter
Wrong, there has been plenty of progress, as much as is possible with the current roadblocks in place. If it were possible to create a new US-based subnational chapter, I estimate that there would be at least one created already, and up to half a dozen seriously in the works. It's not that nobody is organizing, it's that these groups are being told "Sorry, but we can't accept applications from you yet because nobody knows what's going on in the US". Remove the roadblocks, and progress will become self-evident.
I can definitely attest to this. :-) Just a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters shows two in planning and a few ideas (I'm sure there are more pages on Meta-Wiki about this too).
2008/5/1 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
- What do you do for areas like NYC? It would be much easier to
coordinate a chapter for its metropolitan area as opposed to "New York State Chapter" or "New Jersey Chapter." For this, I would suggest we have a fairly fluid system of allowing chapters to form. While a "Virginia" chapter might not be workable, a DC Metropolitan Area one would work (2 hours is not unreasonable for me to drive for a meeting, at least). This brings us to our second issue:
My personal opinion on the matter is that a fluid system like this is probably the best. Consider this multipart solution:
- Chapters can form along any boundary (metropolitan, state) so long
as they do not overlap with other chapters. 2) All chapters must include a clause in their bylaws that they will merge into larger chapters, as "sections" if a larger chapter is formed. So, WMF Philadelphia and WMF Pittsburgh would be forced to merge into WMF PA, if the state chapter was organized and approved. This allows local efforts to get the ball rolling, but also shows preference towards more a more mature model of state-based and eventually nation-based chapters.
This kind of model is helped by US tax exemption doctrines which, as I learned today from Pharos, states that a sub-organization does not need to incorporate separately as a non-profit if it is a local section of a larger tax-exempt non-profit. For all intents and purposes, US subnational chapters and sections could simply be considered autonomous membership sub-organizations of the WMF itself.
- Representation. If we allow per-state or per-region chapters, how much
of a say do each of them have in the Foundation? Is each state given a voice? For this, I would say that the US gets *one* voice, much as the German chapter is given *one* voice, or any of the others.
If you take the view that subnational chapters are really "sections" of a virtual national chapter that does not yet explicitly exist, this becomes a non-issue. Contrariwise, if we consider that sufferage is granted based on membership, a US national chapter will have the same "voice" that 50 smaller subnational chapters would have. Finding that single "voice" would be a logistical matter to handle separately.
The only final issue I've seen is that of funding. Who do you donate to? Does an American donate to the WMF or to the local American Chapter?
As a proposal, I would say this: money donated
There are a number of ways to handle this. First, consider that the WMF and WMF USA would hold different fundraisers. All monies collected during the WMF fundraiser would go to the WMF. All donations made to the WMF go to the WMF, including donations brokered by WMF USA on behalf of the WMF. Assuming we understand that WMF USA is a sub-organization to the WMF, it should be possible to move money from one to the other easily, in times of need.
Consider also that the general level of donations should increase with an increase in on-the-ground volunteers. The WMF is currently looking to fill a single paid position for a person to find and manage donations. Volunteer members of WMF USA could spend hundreds or thousands of man hours organizing fund raisers, soliciting donations from people who otherwise would not have donated, etc. With more of an on-the-ground presence, the WMF should expect an increase in donation revenues, not a decrease because of sharing concerns.
Up until now, there has been no definitive progress towards a US-based chapter
Wrong, there has been plenty of progress, as much as is possible with the current roadblocks in place. If it were possible to create a new US-based subnational chapter, I estimate that there would be at least one created already, and up to half a dozen seriously in the works. It's not that nobody is organizing, it's that these groups are being told "Sorry, but we can't accept applications from you yet because nobody knows what's going on in the US". Remove the roadblocks, and progress will become self-evident.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Please don't forget that the structure should support the activities, not the other way around. We should work with structures that are most practical imho. That will probably differ from situation to situation. In the Netherlands it is practical to accept de facto Flanders as well as coverage area, in the US it might sometimes be practical to split up to state level, and sometimes to metropolean area level.
Generally imho there is a good measure, that is called enthusiasm. If people are enthusiastic about a certain shape and set of conditions, that will likely deliver the best result. Maybe we should not try to write down every detail, but only the major outline and conditions which are legally required and which are needed for good communications. Then we'll see how things go during the process as it goes along.
BR, Lodewijk
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org