On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
I propose that we promote Cary Bass to "Wikimedia US Affiliates Coordinator", as an adjunct position to "Volunteer Coordinator" of the WMF.
I'd like to table this specific idea for now. It was built on the presumption that a "group exemption" would necessitate much closer cooperation of US chapters with the WMF.
Here's my current thoughts on the matter, after talking with you about it privately. It's an attempt at a grassroots bottom-up strategy (which both the WMF and the chapters-to-be seem to want) which at the same time attempts to avoid constantly reinventing the wheel.
Since you have 15 months before you have to file for a determination letter, go ahead and set up the organization and get running, but hold off on the Form 1023.
Then, let's say 6 months down the road, hopefully there will be at least 4 or 5 local US chapters in some process of forming, but without a determination letter. At this point, each local chapter-to-be can appoint one member to the board of a national organization (unless there are too many, in which case some other election process can be determined). The WMF will also appoint one or more board members (presumably with the rule that these people cannot be employees or board members of the WMF). The national organization will exist with a mission solely to help form and oversee local US chapters. It will approve bylaws and articles of association/incorporation (there can be templates for this), it will act as a liason with chap com, etc. It will *not* participate in any direct volunteer efforts, but would act in a general supervisory capacity. This organization can then apply as the parent organization and get a group exemption for all the local organizations.
Individual local chapters will get their trademark permissions directly from the WMF. The national organization will have no rights to give these permissions directly, though it will of course assist in communications between the local organizations and the WMF. Meetings of the national organization will be held online and/or through teleconferencing, to keep the costs down to a minimum. Each local organization will be responsible to keep its own set of books, and will submit financial statements to the national organization on a regular basis (at least quarterly). Local organizations will report their activities to the national organization. Local chapters will be responsible for their own federal, state, and local taxes/tax returns.
Local chapters will kick up a small portion of their membership dues to the national organization. The national organization will use this for any administrative costs, and, optionally to help subsidize new local chapters just getting started up. Any payments from the local chapters to the WMF will go direct, not through the national organization. Every attempt will be made to keep the national organization bare-bones as to expenses and revenues. No Wikimania USA funded by the national organization, if the chapters want that they can get the WMF to do it or can form a Wikimania USA Inc. No travel expenses. No servers. No public relations staff or consultants. Members of the local chapters should be the first point of contact for any necessary expertise. Any national press inquiries will be directed to the WMF.
What does everyone think?
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Local chapters will kick up a small portion of their membership dues to the national organization. The national organization will use this for any administrative costs, and, optionally to help subsidize new local chapters just getting started up. Any payments from the local chapters to the WMF will go direct, not through the national organization. Every attempt will be made to keep the national organization bare-bones as to expenses and revenues. No Wikimania USA funded by the national organization, if the chapters want that they can get the WMF to do it or can form a Wikimania USA Inc. No travel expenses. No servers. No public relations staff or consultants. Members of the local chapters should be the first point of contact for any necessary expertise. Any national press inquiries will be directed to the WMF.
I don't yet clearly see the benefit of this being a separate organization as opposed to having someone at the foundation dedicated to this sort of work.
Sebastian
Anthony wrote:
Here's my current thoughts on the matter, after talking with you about it privately. It's an attempt at a grassroots bottom-up strategy (which both the WMF and the chapters-to-be seem to want) which at the same time attempts to avoid constantly reinventing the wheel.
I don't see the beef. The United States don't need a number of local chapters, they need one national chapter to provide for a membership organization associated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Local groups can form under the national umbrella without being incorporated themselves.
Get the organizers of all local meetups, the Pennsylvanians, the New Yorkers and everyone else who ever made some steps to chapterhood together on a mailing list, ask around if one of the Wikipedians involved is a lawyer who can handle any questions, choose a state where to incorporate the chapter (based on locality of a few core members and the answers of your lawyer) and set up the chapter. That's not rocket science. Wikipedians usually are smart people, you should be able to get it done without any problems.
You need a charter, send it to the Foundation to have it approved, send it to the state office to have it registered, and that's about it.
Henning [[user:H-stt]]
No, the US does not need one national chapter. This has been gone over time and again. Anthony's strategy provides for a guiding body to oversee the local chapters (something that takes too much time and effort for the foundation to do, and also something they must be separate from for liability reasons), but keeps the emphasis on the local chapters, to conduct local events and local outreach, something that they can do far better than any national chapter, while national stuff can be reserved for the WMF to handle. The national guiding body also simplifies the issue of the US local chapters candidates for the 2 board seats.
It sounds great to me.
-Dan
On May 6, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Here's my current thoughts on the matter, after talking with you about it privately. It's an attempt at a grassroots bottom-up strategy (which both the WMF and the chapters-to-be seem to want) which at the same time attempts to avoid constantly reinventing the wheel.
I don't see the beef. The United States don't need a number of local chapters, they need one national chapter to provide for a membership organization associated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Local groups can form under the national umbrella without being incorporated themselves.
Get the organizers of all local meetups, the Pennsylvanians, the New Yorkers and everyone else who ever made some steps to chapterhood together on a mailing list, ask around if one of the Wikipedians involved is a lawyer who can handle any questions, choose a state where to incorporate the chapter (based on locality of a few core members and the answers of your lawyer) and set up the chapter. That's not rocket science. Wikipedians usually are smart people, you should be able to get it done without any problems.
You need a charter, send it to the Foundation to have it approved, send it to the state office to have it registered, and that's about it.
Henning [[user:H-stt]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No, the US does not need one national chapter. This has been gone over time and again. Anthony's strategy provides for a guiding body to oversee the local chapters (something that takes too much time and effort for the foundation to do, and also something they must be separate from for liability reasons), but keeps the emphasis on the local chapters, to conduct local events and local outreach, something that they can do far better than any national chapter, while national stuff can be reserved for the WMF to handle. The national guiding body also simplifies the issue of the US local chapters candidates for the 2 board seats.
The existence of a "virtual" national chapter, a chapter that exists as a hollow shell of sorts, would enable state- and locally-based groups to qualify for 503(c) status under a group exemption. Putting this kind of parent/child structure in place now would be helpful if we decided to move towards a more nationally-organized structure in the future (which might not be entirely unlikely).
I'm not necessarily advocating this, just showing it as a way in which the existence of a US national chapter might be nice, even if it's not strictly necessary.
--Andrew Whitworth
Exactly. To whit, Anthony's "virtual" national chapter, or similar "shell chapter" kind of ideas are one of the few kinds of national chapter that I would personally support.
-Dan On May 6, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No, the US does not need one national chapter. This has been gone over time and again. Anthony's strategy provides for a guiding body to oversee the local chapters (something that takes too much time and effort for the foundation to do, and also something they must be separate from for liability reasons), but keeps the emphasis on the local chapters, to conduct local events and local outreach, something that they can do far better than any national chapter, while national stuff can be reserved for the WMF to handle. The national guiding body also simplifies the issue of the US local chapters candidates for the 2 board seats.
The existence of a "virtual" national chapter, a chapter that exists as a hollow shell of sorts, would enable state- and locally-based groups to qualify for 503(c) status under a group exemption. Putting this kind of parent/child structure in place now would be helpful if we decided to move towards a more nationally-organized structure in the future (which might not be entirely unlikely).
I'm not necessarily advocating this, just showing it as a way in which the existence of a US national chapter might be nice, even if it's not strictly necessary.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- On Tue, 5/6/08, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A new proposal regarding US chapters To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2008, 12:14 PM
Anthony's strategy provides for a
guiding body to oversee the local chapters (something that takes too much time and effort for the foundation to do, and also something they must be separate from for liability reasons), but keeps the emphasis on the local chapters, to conduct local events and local outreach, something that they can do far better than any national chapter, while national stuff can be reserved for the WMF to handle. The national guiding body also simplifies the issue of the US local chapters candidates for the 2 board seats.
I am not sure I understand the need the bare-bones national structure (ignoring the issue of baord seats). What does having it allow to happen that cannot happen without it?
Regarding board seats, I think it is silly to design something around this issue until *after* a selection process is approved. It could be possibly arranged in a way that makes no differnce how many chapters are in the US or not.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
--- On Tue, 5/6/08, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
From: Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A new proposal regarding US chapters To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2008, 11:38 AM Anthony wrote:
Here's my current thoughts on the matter, after
talking with you about
it privately. It's an attempt at a grassroots
bottom-up strategy
(which both the WMF and the chapters-to-be seem to
want) which at the
same time attempts to avoid constantly reinventing the
wheel.
I don't see the beef. The United States don't need a number of local chapters, they need one national chapter to provide for a membership organization associated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
Why again do they need a one national chapter? Since none of the grass-roots organizers see a need, this is far from obvious.
Birgitte
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
I don't find this line of thought compelling at all. There is no need for a separate legal national organization, and indeed this would be confusing and counter-productive.
I can see an argument for US chapters not need a legal organization at all (just use the Foundation for this), and I can see an argument for each of them having their own legal organization (this seems better to me), but I can't see having one non-Foundation organization for multiple chapters.
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Here's my current thoughts on the matter, after talking with you about it privately. It's an attempt at a grassroots bottom-up strategy (which both the WMF and the chapters-to-be seem to want) which at the same time attempts to avoid constantly reinventing the wheel.
I don't see the beef. The United States don't need a number of local chapters, they need one national chapter to provide for a membership organization associated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Local groups can form under the national umbrella without being incorporated themselves.
Get the organizers of all local meetups, the Pennsylvanians, the New Yorkers and everyone else who ever made some steps to chapterhood together on a mailing list, ask around if one of the Wikipedians involved is a lawyer who can handle any questions, choose a state where to incorporate the chapter (based on locality of a few core members and the answers of your lawyer) and set up the chapter. That's not rocket science. Wikipedians usually are smart people, you should be able to get it done without any problems.
You need a charter, send it to the Foundation to have it approved, send it to the state office to have it registered, and that's about it.
Henning [[user:H-stt]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't find this line of thought compelling at all. There is no need for a separate legal national organization, and indeed this would be confusing and counter-productive.
I can see an argument for US chapters not need a legal organization at all (just use the Foundation for this), and I can see an argument for each of them having their own legal organization (this seems better to me), but I can't see having one non-Foundation organization for multiple chapters.
It's never a problem to have too many options! The volunteers are going to organize as they see fit, we can't do too much to script them and I don't think we would even want to if we could. Likewise, the volunteers can't force the WMF to act in any particular way either. We have the four basic options available, at different levels of preference for different people: 1) The WMF is the "parent" to the US local chapters 2) A strong "Wikimedia US" chapter is formed in the US, and local groups serve as "local sections" of this strong chapter 3) A weak "Wikimedia US" chapter shell is formed to provide a legal framework for independent local sections 4) Local sections/chapters form independently and incorporate individually as non-profits, no national chapter whatsoever
Depending on the way that organization progresses on both sides of the coin (the volunteers and the WMF), any of these options may come into or fall out of favor. For instance, if we have several fledgling chapters forming, and all of them are having difficulties incorporating as non-profits, options 1 or 3 might be more interesting. If volunteers decide spontaneously to combine efforts because of inherent similarities, option 2 might be preferred. It's good to have the options on the table and let people work towards their desired ends more organically.
--Andrew Whitworth
Exactly. We need to let the local chapters form and develop first, see how they interact and what their needs are, before any real decisions on a US chapter are necessary.
-Dan
On May 6, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
Depending on the way that organization progresses on both sides of the coin (the volunteers and the WMF), any of these options may come into or fall out of favor. For instance, if we have several fledgling chapters forming, and all of them are having difficulties incorporating as non-profits, options 1 or 3 might be more interesting. If volunteers decide spontaneously to combine efforts because of inherent similarities, option 2 might be preferred. It's good to have the options on the table and let people work towards their desired ends more organically.
--Andrew Whitworth
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I can see an argument for US chapters not need a legal organization at all (just use the Foundation for this), and I can see an argument for each of them having their own legal organization (this seems better to me), but I can't see having one non-Foundation organization for multiple chapters.
The Internet Society (www.isoc.org) has 19 chapters in Africa, 28 chapters in Europe (one in Germany, one in France, one in Sweden, ... two in Belgium, and six in Spain), and 10 chapters in North America (one for Canada, one for Quebec, and one each for Chicago, Los Angeles, New Jersey, New York, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Texas, and Colorado). I think such a flexible model could serve the Wikimedia Foundation as well. The odd fact that Belgium has two chapters (one is for Wallonia) doesn't force every state of Germany to have its own. It's not like every little county or township will set up its own chapter. The ISOC has less than 100 chapters in all.
http://isoc.org/isoc/chapters/
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I can see an argument for US chapters not need a legal organization at all (just use the Foundation for this),
I've yet to see a reasonable proposal from the Foundation as to how that would work. Does the Foundation intend to take on the liability for the real world actions of volunteers around the country? If someone gets injured at a New York City chapter meeting due to the negligence of the meeting organizers, is the WMF gonna cover the medical bills?
and I can see an argument for each of them having their own legal organization (this seems better to me),
It's certainly better. But there's a lot of paperwork involved.
but I can't see having one non-Foundation organization for multiple chapters.
Well, fortunately, this isn't something for you to decide. If the chapters are going to have their own legal organizations, and the WMF (via Mike Godwin) insists that they are not "considered to be part of WMF in any respect", then it's for the chapters to decide how to organize themselves.
--- On Tue, 5/6/08, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A new proposal regarding US chapters To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2008, 2:34 PM On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:>
and I can see an argument for each of them having their own legal organization
(this seems better to
me),
It's certainly better. But there's a lot of paperwork involved.
Is ther really that much less paperwork than what is required to have elections for a national board? Is the risk of sharing liabilty between the responsible group in X and foolish group in Y worth it less paperwork for X? What if some group wants to do the paperwork and only be responsible for the actions their group takes; will they be forced to join in the national scheme?
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 5/6/08, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A new proposal regarding US chapters To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2008, 2:34 PM
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:>
and I can see an argument for each of them having their own legal organization
(this seems better to
me),
It's certainly better. But there's a lot of paperwork involved.
Is ther really that much less paperwork than what is required to have elections for a national board? Is the risk of sharing liabilty between the responsible group in X and foolish group in Y worth it less paperwork for X? What if some group wants to do the paperwork and only be responsible for the actions their group takes; will they be forced to join in the national scheme?
I don't really understand your first two questions, but I've been thinking about your last one, and I think the only reasonable answer is no. If the local chapters feel they can better serve their members by going it alone, they should do so. Put another way, if the benefits received by the local chapters don't exceed the membership dues the national organization requires them to pay, they shouldn't join. This will help force the national organization to keep its costs to a minimum, or else to provide a true value-add to justify itself.
I'm also not dead-set that there has to be a national organization. If it were just the paperwork that goes to the governments, I think I'd recommend for my local organization to go it alone. Of course, I'm an expert in filling out government paperwork, that's pretty much how I make a living, so I know I can do it. On the other hand, a national organization might also make it easier to deal with chap com. In the end, that might be the hardest paperwork to fill out.
So if chap com gets its act together, and makes it so basically the only requirement for a chapter is to have 20 or so willing members able to get together in one location and hold meetings, and agrees to guide the group step by step through the rest of the process, then I guess this whole proposal of a national chapter becomes unnecessary.
Hoi, I think that it is first for the people interested in organising a chapter to get their act together. If anything this is where the real problem is. I find it rather disturbing the ease whereby it is assumed that the WMF is to bed over backwards in order to accommodate something that from the start is completely at odds with what is done everywhere else.
If you want to organise, do so. If you want a chapter that is recognised in the same way as all the other chapters then make it similar to all the other chapters. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 5/6/08, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A new proposal regarding US chapters To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2008, 2:34 PM
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:>
and I can see an argument for each of them having their own legal organization
(this seems better to
me),
It's certainly better. But there's a lot of paperwork involved.
Is ther really that much less paperwork than what is required to have
elections for a national board? Is the risk of sharing liabilty between the responsible group in X and foolish group in Y worth it less paperwork for X? What if some group wants to do the paperwork and only be responsible for the actions their group takes; will they be forced to join in the national scheme?
I don't really understand your first two questions, but I've been thinking about your last one, and I think the only reasonable answer is no. If the local chapters feel they can better serve their members by going it alone, they should do so. Put another way, if the benefits received by the local chapters don't exceed the membership dues the national organization requires them to pay, they shouldn't join. This will help force the national organization to keep its costs to a minimum, or else to provide a true value-add to justify itself.
I'm also not dead-set that there has to be a national organization. If it were just the paperwork that goes to the governments, I think I'd recommend for my local organization to go it alone. Of course, I'm an expert in filling out government paperwork, that's pretty much how I make a living, so I know I can do it. On the other hand, a national organization might also make it easier to deal with chap com. In the end, that might be the hardest paperwork to fill out.
So if chap com gets its act together, and makes it so basically the only requirement for a chapter is to have 20 or so willing members able to get together in one location and hold meetings, and agrees to guide the group step by step through the rest of the process, then I guess this whole proposal of a national chapter becomes unnecessary.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I don't find this line of thought compelling at all. There is no need for a separate legal national organization, and indeed this would be confusing and counter-productive.
I can see an argument for US chapters not need a legal organization at all (just use the Foundation for this), and I can see an argument for each of them having their own legal organization (this seems better to me), but I can't see having one non-Foundation organization for multiple chapters.
I see a wish for and some advantages of a membership organization. The Foundation can't be that, as it is international in scope and international membership is not feasible.
But I don't understand why anyone would want to have several incorporated chapters in one nation if one could be the umbrella for all local and regional activities. Is this a control issue? A 'not invented here' issue? Why shouldn't Pennsylvania be the regional (unincorporated) organization of a national chapter, incorporated in NYC? Or the other way?
Be smart. Think before you act, or there might be half a dozen incorporated chapters on US soil within a few months - and in two years most of them might fail, because their base is not large enough to find board members, they started uncoordinated projects and can't cover the expenses and so on.
Henning
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I don't find this line of thought compelling at all. There is no need for a separate legal national organization, and indeed this would be confusing and counter-productive.
I can see an argument for US chapters not need a legal organization at all (just use the Foundation for this), and I can see an argument for each of them having their own legal organization (this seems better to me), but I can't see having one non-Foundation organization for multiple chapters.
Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Mike Snows suggestion of a single "at large" chapter for all wikipedians of all nationalities not yet represented by a chapter or their very own. I noticed you didn't comment on it directly when Mike alluded to the possibility.
Yours;
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
Get the organizers of all local meetups, the Pennsylvanians, the New Yorkers and everyone else who ever made some steps to chapterhood together on a mailing list, ask around if one of the Wikipedians involved is a lawyer who can handle any questions, choose a state where to incorporate the chapter (based on locality of a few core members and the answers of your lawyer) and set up the chapter. That's not rocket science. Wikipedians usually are smart people, you should be able to get it done without any problems.
I think you need to look at what's currently being done by Wikimedia New York City. They have a couple dozen or more people interested to some extent in forming a chapter, they've appointed an interim president, they've run a "scavenger hunt and free content photography contest", they're looking into a project for the "digitization of the CYCO Yiddish Encyclopedia", and they've "had preliminary discussions about a free content photography contest at the Brooklyn Museum". They've had numerous speakers at their meetings, and they have their next live in-person meeting scheduled for June 1, 2008.
They've got well enough support for a chapter. Telling them set up a mailing list and invite other people from around the United States in order to get this chapter formed doesn't make any sense. I bet at least half the people who will show up at that June 1 meeting wouldn't even read the mailing list, let alone participate on it.
And more importantly, from what I understand, the New Yorkers don't necessarily want to go through the process of formally incorporating and such. In contrast, I understand that the Penn chapter does want to, and I've yet to speak to anyone in the DC working group that does not want to incorporate. Why would we force the chapters that don't want to incorporate to do so, or force the chapters who do want to incorporate not to do so, to satisfy some unwieldy nationwide body?
The concept of a national guiding body, consisting of the boards or presidents (or other senior members) of the local chapters, existing for the purpose of those rare times the US local chapters need to operate in unison, is a good one. It works when it is needed to, and other than that it stays out of the local chapters way and lets them do their work in the manner that the local chapters find most efficient and best for them, and it can serve to mediate conflicts between the chapters if necessary. So basically, it's an ideal form of government.
-Dan On May 6, 2008, at 3:55 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
Get the organizers of all local meetups, the Pennsylvanians, the New Yorkers and everyone else who ever made some steps to chapterhood together on a mailing list, ask around if one of the Wikipedians involved is a lawyer who can handle any questions, choose a state where to incorporate the chapter (based on locality of a few core members and the answers of your lawyer) and set up the chapter. That's not rocket science. Wikipedians usually are smart people, you should be able to get it done without any problems.
I think you need to look at what's currently being done by Wikimedia New York City. They have a couple dozen or more people interested to some extent in forming a chapter, they've appointed an interim president, they've run a "scavenger hunt and free content photography contest", they're looking into a project for the "digitization of the CYCO Yiddish Encyclopedia", and they've "had preliminary discussions about a free content photography contest at the Brooklyn Museum". They've had numerous speakers at their meetings, and they have their next live in-person meeting scheduled for June 1, 2008.
They've got well enough support for a chapter. Telling them set up a mailing list and invite other people from around the United States in order to get this chapter formed doesn't make any sense. I bet at least half the people who will show up at that June 1 meeting wouldn't even read the mailing list, let alone participate on it.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthony wrote: [NYC]
They've got well enough support for a chapter. Telling them set up a mailing list and invite other people from around the United States in order to get this chapter formed doesn't make any sense. I bet at least half the people who will show up at that June 1 meeting wouldn't even read the mailing list, let alone participate on it.
If NYC is the frontrunner, then have them set up /the/ national chapter for the United States. I don't understand why anyone would want to have several incorporated chapters in the USA. One should be enough. All local or regional activities can happen under that umbrella.
Henning
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
If NYC is the frontrunner, then have them set up /the/ national chapter for the United States. I don't understand why anyone would want to have several incorporated chapters in the USA. One should be enough. All local or regional activities can happen under that umbrella.
It's not that easy. Pennsylvania/Philadelphia were actually the first ones interested in becoming a "chapter" and now we have Washington, D.C. that is interested in creating a chapter as well.
According to the Wikinortheast blog, there are quite a few other locations that are stirring, and may begin the development process as well.
-Dan On May 6, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
If NYC is the frontrunner, then have them set up /the/ national chapter for the United States. I don't understand why anyone would want to have several incorporated chapters in the USA. One should be enough. All local or regional activities can happen under that umbrella.
It's not that easy. Pennsylvania/Philadelphia were actually the first ones interested in becoming a "chapter" and now we have Washington, D.C. that is interested in creating a chapter as well.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Henning Schlottmann
h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
If NYC is the frontrunner, then have them set up /the/ national chapter for the United States. I don't understand why anyone would want to have several incorporated chapters in the USA. One should be enough. All local or regional activities can happen under that umbrella.
It's not that easy. Pennsylvania/Philadelphia were actually the first ones interested in becoming a "chapter" and now we have Washington, D.C. that is interested in creating a chapter as well.
Moreover, the PA folks have indicated that they're interested in forming an organization whether the WMF is going to go along with them or not. So if you don't allow a Wikimedia Pennsylvania, or you try to micromanage Wikimedia Pennsylvania from some other location, you'll wind up with a "Wikis in PA". To quote wknight8111, "We were going to call it "Wikimedia Pennsylvania" or whatever, but if we can't use that name we will call it something else".
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
They've got well enough support for a chapter. Telling them set up a mailing list and invite other people from around the United States in order to get this chapter formed doesn't make any sense. I bet at least half the people who will show up at that June 1 meeting wouldn't even read the mailing list, let alone participate on it.
If NYC is the frontrunner, then have them set up /the/ national chapter for the United States. I don't understand why anyone would want to have several incorporated chapters in the USA. One should be enough. All local or regional activities can happen under that umbrella.
First of all, I never said the local chapters had to be incorporated. They'll probably want to be, but if they really want to save the $70 or so and organize as unincorporated associations, that's their prerogative. They should understand though that once their unincorporated association starts collecting money, incorporated or not, they have to account for that money, file tax returns, and do pretty much all the other tasks that incorporated organizations have to do.
But frankly I don't even understand what you mean by having all local or regional activities under a single umbrella. If I, in Tampa, want to run a "scavenger hunt and free content photography contest", why should this be organized by someone in New York City? Do I get a checking account here in Tampa to buy the refreshments, or do I have them send me a check from New York City? I guess I have to have a checking account, because when someone donates $10 in cash towards the event, I'm not sending the cash through the mail, and I'm not buying a money order or sending it Western Union. I guess I could put it all under my pillow. Let's hope all of it gets spent on project funds, cause there's no way some bureaucrat in New York City is going to figure out if it doesn't. After all, the national organization, run out of New York City, has to appoint me as an officer, so that I can have checkwriting privileges. And most likely without even having met me.
How does any of that make sense? Shouldn't those of us in Tampa decide these things? Shouldn't the local donors decide who is most trustworthy to entrust with their money, and shouldn't they have at least the opportunity to meet with the people in charge in person? Are the board members all going to be from New York City, or are we going to send the board members on planes all over the country so they can have their board meetings? Or maybe we'll just do everything by email, I'm sure that'll *really* facilitate working together.
Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
[...] But frankly I don't even understand what you mean by having all local or regional activities under a single umbrella. If I, in Tampa, want to run a "scavenger hunt and free content photography contest", why should this be organized by someone in New York City? Do I get a checking account here in Tampa to buy the refreshments, or do I have them send me a check from New York City? I guess I have to have a checking account, because when someone donates $10 in cash towards the event, I'm not sending the cash through the mail, and I'm not buying a money order or sending it Western Union. I guess I could put it all under my pillow. Let's hope all of it gets spent on project funds, cause there's no way some bureaucrat in New York City is going to figure out if it doesn't. After all, the national organization, run out of New York City, has to appoint me as an officer, so that I can have checkwriting privileges. And most likely without even having met me. [...]
In Germany (and probably in the SEPA at large), transferring money seems to be a lot easier (and cheaper) than in the US. And most members of an organization regularly put up front minor expenses (for refreshments, etc.) and have them reim- bursed later on. That makes it difficult for foreigners where checks are something your grandparents tell you about to grasp the intricacies of founding US chapter(s).
So, hats off to those who succeed!
Tim
Exactly what I've been thinking Anthony.
-dan On May 6, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
I propose that we promote Cary Bass to "Wikimedia US Affiliates Coordinator", as an adjunct position to "Volunteer Coordinator" of the WMF.
I'd like to table this specific idea for now. It was built on the presumption that a "group exemption" would necessitate much closer cooperation of US chapters with the WMF.
Here's my current thoughts on the matter, after talking with you about it privately. It's an attempt at a grassroots bottom-up strategy (which both the WMF and the chapters-to-be seem to want) which at the same time attempts to avoid constantly reinventing the wheel.
Since you have 15 months before you have to file for a determination letter, go ahead and set up the organization and get running, but hold off on the Form 1023.
Then, let's say 6 months down the road, hopefully there will be at least 4 or 5 local US chapters in some process of forming, but without a determination letter. At this point, each local chapter-to-be can appoint one member to the board of a national organization (unless there are too many, in which case some other election process can be determined). The WMF will also appoint one or more board members (presumably with the rule that these people cannot be employees or board members of the WMF). The national organization will exist with a mission solely to help form and oversee local US chapters. It will approve bylaws and articles of association/incorporation (there can be templates for this), it will act as a liason with chap com, etc. It will *not* participate in any direct volunteer efforts, but would act in a general supervisory capacity. This organization can then apply as the parent organization and get a group exemption for all the local organizations.
Individual local chapters will get their trademark permissions directly from the WMF. The national organization will have no rights to give these permissions directly, though it will of course assist in communications between the local organizations and the WMF. Meetings of the national organization will be held online and/or through teleconferencing, to keep the costs down to a minimum. Each local organization will be responsible to keep its own set of books, and will submit financial statements to the national organization on a regular basis (at least quarterly). Local organizations will report their activities to the national organization. Local chapters will be responsible for their own federal, state, and local taxes/tax returns.
Local chapters will kick up a small portion of their membership dues to the national organization. The national organization will use this for any administrative costs, and, optionally to help subsidize new local chapters just getting started up. Any payments from the local chapters to the WMF will go direct, not through the national organization. Every attempt will be made to keep the national organization bare-bones as to expenses and revenues. No Wikimania USA funded by the national organization, if the chapters want that they can get the WMF to do it or can form a Wikimania USA Inc. No travel expenses. No servers. No public relations staff or consultants. Members of the local chapters should be the first point of contact for any necessary expertise. Any national press inquiries will be directed to the WMF.
What does everyone think?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org