In a message dated 5/1/2008 1:14:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, swatjester@gmail.com writes:
I see. Well on that note, can I announce the start of a working group for the development of a DC/Baltimore metropolitan area chapter. Both Wikimedians from the DC area as well as those with chapters experience are invited to help out.
What is the objective of this chapter? Is it to solicit tax-free donations in the US? The WMF is already doing that with a professional, dedicated staff. Is it to negotiate with local institutions over the release of content? Again, the WMF is in the same country and is better equipped to do this. Is it to provide a membership organization that will assume responsibility for content? I doubt it. Is it to organize meetups and other social events? If so, then why go to the trouble of incorporating just to have a realtime beer with your online friends? Is it just to have a say in determining the chapter seats? Seems like a lot of trouble for that.
While I do not oppose a US chapter or even a series of local chapters, it would seem prudent to determine first what the purpose of the chapter is.
Danny
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
Part of the brainstorming process is for people to determine that. However, I'd suggest it for multiple purposes. It'd be a membership voice for DC area Wikimedians, especially as far as the board restructuring is concerned. It can assist the WMF in both donations and content release, especially within the DC metro area (which has a lot of room for both) by adding local contact, as well as taking some of the burden off of the WMF. It could also be a source of donations from people who have issues donating to the WMF as a whole, but want to support Wikimedia in other ways. It can organize events for its membership, as well as providing a representative voice for this subsection of the population, one that is pretty highly active in Wikimedia. Finally, it's a first step towards getting any sort of representation for the US in a chapter structure.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
-Dan
On May 1, 2008, at 1:36 PM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/1/2008 1:14:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, swatjester@gmail.com writes:
I see. Well on that note, can I announce the start of a working group for the development of a DC/Baltimore metropolitan area chapter. Both Wikimedians from the DC area as well as those with chapters experience are invited to help out.
What is the objective of this chapter? Is it to solicit tax-free donations in the US? The WMF is already doing that with a professional, dedicated staff. Is it to negotiate with local institutions over the release of content? Again, the WMF is in the same country and is better equipped to do this. Is it to provide a membership organization that will assume responsibility for content? I doubt it. Is it to organize meetups and other social events? If so, then why go to the trouble of incorporating just to have a realtime beer with your online friends? Is it just to have a say in determining the chapter seats? Seems like a lot of trouble for that.
While I do not oppose a US chapter or even a series of local chapters, it would seem prudent to determine first what the purpose of the chapter is.
Danny
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
What is the objective of this chapter? Is it to solicit tax-free donations in the US? The WMF is already doing that with a professional, dedicated staff. Is it to negotiate with local institutions over the release of content? Again, the WMF is in the same country and is better equipped to do this. Is it to provide a membership organization that will assume responsibility for content? I doubt it. Is it to organize meetups and other social events? If so, then why go to the trouble of incorporating just to have a realtime beer with your online friends? Is it just to have a say in determining the chapter seats? Seems like a lot of trouble for that.
While I do not oppose a US chapter or even a series of local chapters, it would seem prudent to determine first what the purpose of the chapter is.
Danny
Although we are all used to interacting with the WMF all on a daily basis, I think we have to recognize that the international organization has a remarkably light footprint in the real world, even in the US, and even in our largest city, which is New York City.
We have been organizing in New York City (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City) since November, and there are a number of activities we have started on, and clear room for much further outreach.
We already held our our first outreach event, "Wikpedia Takes Manhattan" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Manhattan) on April 4, with Columbia University and NYU students. I reached out to the WMF, but their only involvement was pointing us to O'Reilly Media as a willing donor for 'Wikipedia: The Missing Manual' books as prizes. This was certainly appreciated, but our collaborations with local Students for Free Culture groups were rather more significant to getting this event to happen. We also talked to several reporters about this event; obviously there were no official WMF representatives in place to take that role.
We've also made outreach to a local organization for the placing in free content of a Yiddish-language encyclopedia (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City/CYCO_Yiddish_Encyclop...). There has been no involvement of the WMF in this activity either, nor is their anyone in the SF office who has a job to do such a thing.
We have also had preliminary discussions about a free content photography contest at the Brooklyn Museum.
And for the Fall, we are planning a "Wiki Week" or wikiconference, again with organizing by local Students for Free Culture groups. This will probably include another "Wikipedia Takes Manhattan", a small-scale "Wikipedia Academy", and high-profile speakers if we can get them. So far, there has been no direct WMF involvement in this initiative either (admittedly, we only started planning on Wednesday).
So, I would say there is an awful lot that local affiliates in the US can do. And the fact that we can meet in person and coordinate with other local groups on a regular basis is great contributor toward that work.
Thanks, Pharos
Pharos wrote:
Although we are all used to interacting with the WMF all on a daily basis, I think we have to recognize that the international organization has a remarkably light footprint in the real world, even in the US, and even in our largest city, which is New York City.
We have been organizing in New York City (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City) since November, and there are a number of activities we have started on, and clear room for much further outreach.
We already held our our first outreach event, "Wikpedia Takes Manhattan" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Manhattan) on April 4, with Columbia University and NYU students. I reached out to the WMF, but their only involvement was pointing us to O'Reilly Media as a willing donor for 'Wikipedia: The Missing Manual' books as prizes. This was certainly appreciated, but our collaborations with local Students for Free Culture groups were rather more significant to getting this event to happen. We also talked to several reporters about this event; obviously there were no official WMF representatives in place to take that role.
We've also made outreach to a local organization for the placing in free content of a Yiddish-language encyclopedia (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City/CYCO_Yiddish_Encyclop...). There has been no involvement of the WMF in this activity either, nor is their anyone in the SF office who has a job to do such a thing.
We have also had preliminary discussions about a free content photography contest at the Brooklyn Museum.
And for the Fall, we are planning a "Wiki Week" or wikiconference, again with organizing by local Students for Free Culture groups. This will probably include another "Wikipedia Takes Manhattan", a small-scale "Wikipedia Academy", and high-profile speakers if we can get them. So far, there has been no direct WMF involvement in this initiative either (admittedly, we only started planning on Wednesday).
So, I would say there is an awful lot that local affiliates in the US can do. And the fact that we can meet in person and coordinate with other local groups on a regular basis is great contributor toward that work.
Thanks, Pharos
I agree. Chapters, because they are defined by geography, are particularly well-suited to staging geographically-based outreach activities such as Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and to liaising with nearby organizations (e.g., Brooklyn Museum). The Foundation, on the other hand, has an international mandate, so it wouldn't make sense for it to focus on events that are confined to a single location. Essentially, any F2F event the Foundation supports needs to be scalable, repeatable, templateable - something where we are facilitating the work of volunteers, rather than duplicating it.
So I don't see anything wrong with the situation you describe, Pharos: do you? Whether the New York group is ultimately defined as a chapter, a chapter-like organization, a local affiliate or something else entirely - it sounds like it's doing good, useful, needed work.
Having said that, I would like to see the Foundation grow better able to support chapter activities with advice and expertise. (I'm not necessarily suggesting the Foundation itself be positioned as the expert, nor that we would be the only entity playing this role - sometimes, for example, I expect we'd be facilitating or supporting expertise-sharing among other groups.) So far, probably our best example of this is Frank Schulenburg's Wikipedia Academies - but I hope that, over time, we will develop other good models as well.
Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Pharos wrote:
Although we are all used to interacting with the WMF all on a daily basis, I think we have to recognize that the international organization has a remarkably light footprint in the real world, even in the US, and even in our largest city, which is New York City.
We have been organizing in New York City (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City) since November, and there are a number of activities we have started on, and clear room for much further outreach.
We already held our our first outreach event, "Wikpedia Takes Manhattan" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Manhattan) on April 4, with Columbia University and NYU students. I reached out to the WMF, but their only involvement was pointing us to O'Reilly Media as a willing donor for 'Wikipedia: The Missing Manual' books as prizes. This was certainly appreciated, but our collaborations with local Students for Free Culture groups were rather more significant to getting this event to happen. We also talked to several reporters about this event; obviously there were no official WMF representatives in place to take that role.
We've also made outreach to a local organization for the placing in free content of a Yiddish-language encyclopedia (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City/CYCO_Yiddish_Encyclop...). There has been no involvement of the WMF in this activity either, nor is their anyone in the SF office who has a job to do such a thing.
We have also had preliminary discussions about a free content photography contest at the Brooklyn Museum.
And for the Fall, we are planning a "Wiki Week" or wikiconference, again with organizing by local Students for Free Culture groups. This will probably include another "Wikipedia Takes Manhattan", a small-scale "Wikipedia Academy", and high-profile speakers if we can get them. So far, there has been no direct WMF involvement in this initiative either (admittedly, we only started planning on Wednesday).
So, I would say there is an awful lot that local affiliates in the US can do. And the fact that we can meet in person and coordinate with other local groups on a regular basis is great contributor toward that work.
Thanks, Pharos
I agree. Chapters, because they are defined by geography, are particularly well-suited to staging geographically-based outreach activities such as Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and to liaising with nearby organizations (e.g., Brooklyn Museum). The Foundation, on the other hand, has an international mandate, so it wouldn't make sense for it to focus on events that are confined to a single location. Essentially, any F2F event the Foundation supports needs to be scalable, repeatable, templateable - something where we are facilitating the work of volunteers, rather than duplicating it.
So I don't see anything wrong with the situation you describe, Pharos: do you? Whether the New York group is ultimately defined as a chapter, a chapter-like organization, a local affiliate or something else entirely - it sounds like it's doing good, useful, needed work.
I certainly don't see anything wrong; things are going quite well, except that there is not yet a mechanism for US groups to officially affiliate with the WMF. If we had that, it might be easier for us to work with larger local institutions, and it would also be possible, though the "group exemption" in US tax law, to fundraise as a non-profit, both for the WMF and for our local activities.
Having said that, I would like to see the Foundation grow better able to support chapter activities with advice and expertise. (I'm not necessarily suggesting the Foundation itself be positioned as the expert, nor that we would be the only entity playing this role - sometimes, for example, I expect we'd be facilitating or supporting expertise-sharing among other groups.) So far, probably our best example of this is Frank Schulenburg's Wikipedia Academies - but I hope that, over time, we will develop other good models as well.
I have suggested in another thread that our "Volunteer Coordinator" be co-designated "Wikimedia US Affiliates Coordinator". Certainly such a move would open up greater comunication between the WMF and local US groups.
Thanks, Pharos
On the long term, when the chapters chose board members, there will raise the question how many votes a chapter has, if there will be one vote per chapter etc. Whether a country has one or several chapters might become important, and I wonder whether other chapters will be fond of multiple chapters in another country. On the other side, when the Foundation has to deal with chapters, it will be easier if the number of chapters cannot be theoretically unlimited. Therefore there should be the rule "one country, one chapter", to avoid several problems. If necessary you can have local afiliates within one chapter. A chapter is free regarding its internal structure. I can imagine that in a couple of years, when the German chapter has grown, there will be a regional afiliation in each of the 16 federal countries. Ziko
2008/5/3 Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Pharos wrote:
Although we are all used to interacting with the WMF all on a daily basis, I think we have to recognize that the international organization has a remarkably light footprint in the real world, even in the US, and even in our largest city, which is New York City.
We have been organizing in New York City (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City) since November, and there are a number of activities we have started on, and clear room for much further outreach.
We already held our our first outreach event, "Wikpedia Takes Manhattan" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Manhattan) on April 4, with Columbia University and NYU students. I reached out to the WMF, but their only involvement was pointing us to O'Reilly Media as a willing donor for 'Wikipedia: The Missing Manual' books as prizes. This was certainly appreciated, but our collaborations with local Students for Free Culture groups were rather more significant to getting this event to happen. We also talked to several reporters about this event; obviously there were no official WMF representatives in place to take that role.
We've also made outreach to a local organization for the placing in free content of a Yiddish-language encyclopedia (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City/CYCO_Yiddish_Encyclop...). There has been no involvement of the WMF in this activity either, nor is their anyone in the SF office who has a job to do such a thing.
We have also had preliminary discussions about a free content photography contest at the Brooklyn Museum.
And for the Fall, we are planning a "Wiki Week" or wikiconference, again with organizing by local Students for Free Culture groups. This will probably include another "Wikipedia Takes Manhattan", a small-scale "Wikipedia Academy", and high-profile speakers if we can get them. So far, there has been no direct WMF involvement in this initiative either (admittedly, we only started planning on Wednesday).
So, I would say there is an awful lot that local affiliates in the US can do. And the fact that we can meet in person and coordinate with other local groups on a regular basis is great contributor toward that work.
Thanks, Pharos
I agree. Chapters, because they are defined by geography, are particularly well-suited to staging geographically-based outreach activities such as Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and to liaising with nearby organizations (e.g., Brooklyn Museum). The Foundation, on the other hand, has an international mandate, so it wouldn't make sense for it to focus on events that are confined to a single location. Essentially, any F2F event the Foundation supports needs to be scalable, repeatable, templateable - something where we are facilitating the work of volunteers, rather than duplicating it.
So I don't see anything wrong with the situation you describe, Pharos: do you? Whether the New York group is ultimately defined as a chapter, a chapter-like organization, a local affiliate or something else entirely - it sounds like it's doing good, useful, needed work.
I certainly don't see anything wrong; things are going quite well, except that there is not yet a mechanism for US groups to officially affiliate with the WMF. If we had that, it might be easier for us to work with larger local institutions, and it would also be possible, though the "group exemption" in US tax law, to fundraise as a non-profit, both for the WMF and for our local activities.
Having said that, I would like to see the Foundation grow better able to support chapter activities with advice and expertise. (I'm not necessarily suggesting the Foundation itself be positioned as the expert, nor that we would be the only entity playing this role - sometimes, for example, I expect we'd be facilitating or supporting expertise-sharing among other groups.) So far, probably our best example of this is Frank Schulenburg's Wikipedia Academies - but I hope that, over time, we will develop other good models as well.
I have suggested in another thread that our "Volunteer Coordinator" be co-designated "Wikimedia US Affiliates Coordinator". Certainly such a move would open up greater comunication between the WMF and local US groups.
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
On the long term, when the chapters chose board members, there will raise the question how many votes a chapter has, if there will be one vote per chapter etc. Whether a country has one or several chapters might become important, and I wonder whether other chapters will be fond of multiple chapters in another country. On the other side, when the Foundation has to deal with chapters, it will be easier if the number of chapters cannot be theoretically unlimited. Therefore there should be the rule "one country, one chapter", to avoid several problems.
And how does this eliminate any more problems than "one state, one chapter"? I note that even the term "country" is generally defined with respect to the term "state".
If the EU has more than one chapter, why not the US?
Hoi, Easy you answer it yourself. The USA is one country under God, Europe is not. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
On the long term, when the chapters chose board members, there will raise the question how many votes a chapter has, if there will be one vote per chapter etc. Whether a country has one or several chapters might become important, and I wonder whether other chapters will be fond of multiple chapters in another country. On the other side, when the Foundation has to deal with chapters, it will be easier if the number of chapters cannot be theoretically unlimited. Therefore there should be the rule "one country, one chapter", to avoid several problems.
And how does this eliminate any more problems than "one state, one chapter"? I note that even the term "country" is generally defined with respect to the term "state".
If the EU has more than one chapter, why not the US?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Easy you answer it yourself. The USA is one country under God, Europe is not. Thanks, GerardM
I've never referred to the USA as "one country under God", but this begs the question as to whether being "one country" matters at all. The USA is not "one state under God". (I've never called it "one country under God" either, but that's irrelevant.)
To look at it another way, chapters are non-profit organizations, and non-profit organizations are formed through the state and governed by state law (at least in the US, I don't know how it works in the EU).
Hoi, Countries in Europe have states too. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Easy you answer it yourself. The USA is one country under God, Europe
is
not. Thanks, GerardM
I've never referred to the USA as "one country under God", but this begs the question as to whether being "one country" matters at all. The USA is not "one state under God". (I've never called it "one country under God" either, but that's irrelevant.)
To look at it another way, chapters are non-profit organizations, and non-profit organizations are formed through the state and governed by state law (at least in the US, I don't know how it works in the EU).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Countries in Europe have states too. Thanks, GerardM
I don't deny that, though I do wonder if we're using the same sense of the term "state". I don't mean to include mere administrative divisions.
US states have their own laws, their own income and sales taxes, and they each handle incorporation separately. In fact, a corporation which does business in more than one state has to keep separate accounting for each state and file as a foreign corporation in each state apart from the first. There are, as Sebastian questioned, significant legal, if not tax, advantages to having a separate organization in each state.
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
US states have their own laws, their own income and sales taxes, and they each handle incorporation separately. In fact, a corporation which does business in more than one state has to keep separate accounting for each state and file as a foreign corporation in each state apart from the first. There are, as Sebastian questioned, significant legal, if not tax, advantages to having a separate organization in each state.
Hm. It is a wrong way for arguing for state-level chapters in USA. Free State Bavaria is, for example, much more independent entity than any of US states. And there are a number of similar examples in Europe.
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. It is a wrong way for arguing for state-level chapters in USA. Free State Bavaria is, for example, much more independent entity than any of US states. And there are a number of similar examples in Europe.
Could we please remain within the scope of the question here, namely on what basis to structure chapters and what factors influence that? The intricate (quite political) details of what level of sovereignty a country, state, province, or whatever has hold little to no relevance for this question.
Sebastian
On the contrary, I think that the issue of how chapters are structured between states and countries is a critical issue.
-Dan On May 3, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. It is a wrong way for arguing for state-level chapters in USA. Free State Bavaria is, for example, much more independent entity than any of US states. And there are a number of similar examples in Europe.
Could we please remain within the scope of the question here, namely on what basis to structure chapters and what factors influence that? The intricate (quite political) details of what level of sovereignty a country, state, province, or whatever has hold little to no relevance for this question.
Sebastian _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
On the contrary, I think that the issue of how chapters are structured between states and countries is a critical issue.
-Dan
On May 3, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. It is a wrong way for arguing for state-level chapters in USA. Free State Bavaria is, for example, much more independent entity than any of US states. And there are a number of similar examples in Europe.
Could we please remain within the scope of the question here, namely on what basis to structure chapters and what factors influence that? The intricate (quite political) details of what level of sovereignty a country, state, province, or whatever has hold little to no relevance for this question.
I wanted to say that a level of independence is often less important than some other issues. If the goal is to build a functional organization, then we should think about aspects which are particularly important in some cases. In the case of US (and other big countries) there is much more important problem than a level of regional autonomy: the distance. Because of that, I may imagine that WM New England would be a functional organization, while I am not sure that WM California would be.
I think the two are intertwined though. Distance and autonomy are interconnected. For instance, California itself may not be ripe for a state-wide chapter: it may merit a NoCal and SoCal chapter (north and south). Whereas, Pennsylvania really has two major population centers connected by a highway, it's not so hard to get between Philly and Pittsburg. Same thing with DC....it's trivial to get between Baltimore and DC, but it's an all day trek to get to Boston, and at least a half day to New York. For those purposes, regional chapters don't necessarily work quite as well as Metro area chapters.
Take Florida for instance. The capital is in north florida, but it's over 6 hours away by car from the major south florida metro area (miami, ft. lauderdale, palm beach). and slightly less than that from Tampa/St. Pete/Clearwater, and 4 from Orlando. So it makes sense to have a chapter for Florida located somewhere in the south of the state (probably Tampa or Orlando). But the distances tie directly into the issue of autonomy, i.e. is the chapter state based, or metro area based?
On the other hand, some areas work quite well for regional chapters: the New England area being a prime example of this. Similarly, South Carolina and Pennsylvania work well as a state chapter. DC is so closely tied to Maryland and northern virginia that it would work best as a metro area chapter.
The point is, I don't think a mandatory structure works well for the US. Some areas are better suited to state, others metro area, others still regional. But no single structure works for everything, so it's better to "mix and match" as necessary to best serve the constituency of each chapter.
-Dan
On May 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
On the contrary, I think that the issue of how chapters are structured between states and countries is a critical issue.
-Dan
On May 3, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. It is a wrong way for arguing for state-level chapters in USA. Free State Bavaria is, for example, much more independent entity than any of US states. And there are a number of similar examples in Europe.
Could we please remain within the scope of the question here, namely on what basis to structure chapters and what factors influence that? The intricate (quite political) details of what level of sovereignty a country, state, province, or whatever has hold little to no relevance for this question.
I wanted to say that a level of independence is often less important than some other issues. If the goal is to build a functional organization, then we should think about aspects which are particularly important in some cases. In the case of US (and other big countries) there is much more important problem than a level of regional autonomy: the distance. Because of that, I may imagine that WM New England would be a functional organization, while I am not sure that WM California would be.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I think the two are intertwined though. Distance and autonomy are interconnected. For instance, California itself may not be ripe for a state-wide chapter: it may merit a NoCal and SoCal chapter (north and south). Whereas, Pennsylvania really has two major population centers connected by a highway, it's not so hard to get between Philly and Pittsburg. Same thing with DC....it's trivial to get between Baltimore and DC, but it's an all day trek to get to Boston, and at least a half day to New York. For those purposes, regional chapters don't necessarily work quite as well as Metro area chapters.
Take Florida for instance. The capital is in north florida, but it's over 6 hours away by car from the major south florida metro area (miami, ft. lauderdale, palm beach). and slightly less than that from Tampa/St. Pete/Clearwater, and 4 from Orlando. So it makes sense to have a chapter for Florida located somewhere in the south of the state (probably Tampa or Orlando). But the distances tie directly into the issue of autonomy, i.e. is the chapter state based, or metro area based?
On the other hand, some areas work quite well for regional chapters: the New England area being a prime example of this. Similarly, South Carolina and Pennsylvania work well as a state chapter. DC is so closely tied to Maryland and northern virginia that it would work best as a metro area chapter.
The point is, I don't think a mandatory structure works well for the US. Some areas are better suited to state, others metro area, others still regional. But no single structure works for everything, so it's better to "mix and match" as necessary to best serve the constituency of each chapter.
I could not agree more with your last sentence. The problem I see with "mix and match", which for the record, is definitely the approach I believe the situation in the US calls for, is that if we let all the "metro-areas", "states", "regional sections" create chatpers as they see fit, with no way to tie them together somehow, then we're facing the problem that at some point some might overlap. One exmaple might be: if you have a metro area Philadelphia chapter, where do people who live elsewhere than in that metro area, in Pennsylvania and still want to do stuff on a local level, fit? In which structure? Do we dissolve the metro-area chapter to get a state-level chapter? If they incorporate, who gets to fundraise? The Foundation, which has been seeking tax-deductibility US-wide? The metro area chapter? The state chapter? All of them? I mean... this could get really messy.
I think that Pharos' approach, ahving the WMFoundation dedicate specific resources to a "US local chapter" (which by the way, does not have to operate US wide, but could just be the point of communication of more regional chapters) actually makes sense, and it is definitely one approach I am going to take into consideration, among others.
This staid, I still believe we should be looking at other organisations before we reinvent the wheel. We're definitely not the only ones who had to ask ourselves that question.
Delphine
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I wanted to say that a level of independence is often less important than some other issues. If the goal is to build a functional organization, then we should think about aspects which are particularly important in some cases. In the case of US (and other big countries) there is much more important problem than a level of regional autonomy: the distance. Because of that, I may imagine that WM New England would be a functional organization, while I am not sure that WM California would be.
California seems like a good example of where a separate organization would make sense, because its laws tend to be quite different from the rest of the states.
In the end, I think the most important question to answer first is the one posed by Danny. Why is there a need for incorporation in the first place?
As for Free State Bavaria, I don't know the details, but if they are just as independent as the US states (separate laws and courts, separate taxes, separate incorporation statutes, the need to file as a foreign corporation anyway), then I don't know of any reason not to have a chapter there as well.
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
As for Free State Bavaria, I don't know the details, but if they are just as independent as the US states (separate laws and courts, separate taxes, separate incorporation statutes, the need to file as a foreign corporation anyway), then I don't know of any reason not to have a chapter there as well.
Bavaria is very well connected with the rest of Germany. This is the main reason why they don't need a separate chapter. Bavaria has its own Supreme Court, as well as they have a distinct conservative party from the rest of Germany (imagine California with something like "New Republican Party of California", which makes a coalition with Republican Party at the federal level; of course, without any office of RP in California).
"Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com wrote:
As for Free State Bavaria, I don't know the details, but if they are just as independent as the US states (separate laws and courts, separate taxes, separate incorporation statutes, the need to file as a foreign corporation anyway), then I don't know of any reason not to have a chapter there as well.
Bavaria is very well connected with the rest of Germany. This is the main reason why they don't need a separate chapter. Bavaria has its own Supreme Court, as well as they have a distinct conservative party from the rest of Germany (imagine California with something like "New Republican Party of California", which makes a coalition with Republican Party at the federal level; of course, without any office of RP in California).
FTR, I *sincerely* doubt that German Bundesländer can be compared to US states. While they have own domains of legis- lation (and each its own supreme court), the differences are rather subtle in contrast to the US. No Louisiana Civil Code here.
But this should not be an exercise in comparative law. To quote Sebastian's fine summary:
| This really only makes a difference if you let political geography dictate | our choices. I don't see any obvious reason why that should be the case. | Rather, we always have to come back to (1) what purposes chapters serve and | (2) what structure best accomodates those purposes.
Define an objective, and then determine the best way to achieve it. Otherwise you will get lost.
Tim
I 100% agree with this, and I think we all ought to be reminded of this (myself possibly more than anyone).
-Dan On May 3, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
But this should not be an exercise in comparative law. To quote Sebastian's fine summary:
| This really only makes a difference if you let political geography dictate | our choices. I don't see any obvious reason why that should be the case. | Rather, we always have to come back to (1) what purposes chapters serve and | (2) what structure best accomodates those purposes.
Define an objective, and then determine the best way to achieve it. Otherwise you will get lost.
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de wrote:
Define an objective, and then determine the best way to achieve it. Otherwise you will get lost.
Main objective at this point is probably to have a voice in the chapter representative selection process.
I'm not sure what the best way is to achieve that, though. Setting up a non-profit (or more) would be easy. Getting approval from the foundation, I have no idea.
Milos Rancic wrote:
Bavaria is very well connected with the rest of Germany. This is the main reason why they don't need a separate chapter. Bavaria has its own Supreme Court, as well as they have a distinct conservative party from the rest of Germany (imagine California with something like "New Republican Party of California", which makes a coalition with Republican Party at the federal level; of course, without any office of RP in California).
Milos, pretty much everything you wrote about Bavaria in this thread is flat wrong. I am from Bavaria, I studied law here, including of course the state law, and Bavarias status is identical to every other German state and has much less of sovereignty then US states. But as this is not the place to discuss the status of sovereignty for subnational entities in Germany, let's keep it by this statement.
But, and that is a large but: All of you seem to assume that the ability to meet face to face easily is a precondition to establish a chapter. I don't think so. In most jurisdictions you need a certain number of people to attend one meeting for the founding of an association and sometimes there is an obligatory annual or biannual meeting to review reports from the board and hold elections for the board. In some jurisdictions these meetings are legally allowed to take place online.
A chapter does not need regular meetings beyond that and regular meetings don't need a chapter. We have monthly meetups in Munich, Bavaria, Germany since December 2003, long before the German chapter was founded, and without a Bavarian or local chapter. Same for Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg and so on, where they have monthly meetups as well.
So if you want to organize meetups, just put it on a subpage of [[:en:WP:Meetup]] (or your own equivalent page) and notice everyone you know. No chapter needed.
Chapters can handle donations, press contacts, organize larger events and so on. Some of that needs a core team at a certain place, most of the jobs are not connected with the geographic placements of active members. If there were a Wikimedia Canada chapter, registered at Ottawa or Toronto, that would not preclude someone from Edmonton, Calgary or Vancouver to handle press contacts or act as treasurer and handle donations. Same in Russia or Australia.
Ciao Henning [[user:H-stt]] (home project: de-WP)
On Sun, 04 May 2008 09:24:49 +0200, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
Bavaria is very well connected with the rest of Germany. This is the main reason why they don't need a separate chapter. Bavaria has its own Supreme Court, as well as they have a distinct conservative party from the rest of Germany (imagine California with something like "New Republican Party of California", which makes a coalition with Republican Party at the federal level; of course, without any office of RP in California).
Milos, pretty much everything you wrote about Bavaria in this thread is flat wrong. I am from Bavaria, I studied law here, including of course the state law, and Bavarias status is identical to every other German state and has much less of sovereignty then US states. But as this is not the place to discuss the status of sovereignty for subnational entities in Germany, let's keep it by this statement.
But, and that is a large but: All of you seem to assume that the ability to meet face to face easily is a precondition to establish a chapter. I don't think so. In most jurisdictions you need a certain number of people to attend one meeting for the founding of an association and sometimes there is an obligatory annual or biannual meeting to review reports from the board and hold elections for the board. In some jurisdictions these meetings are legally allowed to take place online.
A chapter does not need regular meetings beyond that and regular meetings don't need a chapter. We have monthly meetups in Munich, Bavaria, Germany since December 2003, long before the German chapter was founded, and without a Bavarian or local chapter. Same for Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg and so on, where they have monthly meetups as well.
So if you want to organize meetups, just put it on a subpage of [[:en:WP:Meetup]] (or your own equivalent page) and notice everyone you know. No chapter needed.
Chapters can handle donations, press contacts, organize larger events and so on. Some of that needs a core team at a certain place, most of the jobs are not connected with the geographic placements of active members. If there were a Wikimedia Canada chapter, registered at Ottawa or Toronto, that would not preclude someone from Edmonton, Calgary or Vancouver to handle press contacts or act as treasurer and handle donations. Same in Russia or Australia.
Spot on for Australia. We are incorporating in Victoria. We have had Meetups in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth at least. I may have missed some. All these started long before Wikimedia Australia Inc. The chapter committee can have members from all over. The meeting to approve incorporation had groups in Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth anf Hobart linked by VOIP. There is not need these days for face to face meetings. We had a committee meeting by IRC only 2 hours ago.
Brian.
Ciao Henning [[user:H-stt]] (home project: de-WP)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- On Sun, 5/4/08, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
From: Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, May 4, 2008, 2:24 AM
Chapters can handle donations, press contacts, organize larger events and so on. Some of that needs a core team at a certain place, most of the jobs are not connected with the geographic placements of active members.
Since all of this is handled in the US, why do people expect us to waste our time on bureaucracy of setting up a chapter?
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sun, 5/4/08, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
From: Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, May 4, 2008, 2:24 AM
Chapters can handle donations, press contacts, organize larger events and so on. Some of that needs a core team at a certain place, most of the jobs are not connected with the geographic placements of active members.
Since all of this is handled in the US, why do people expect us to waste our time on bureaucracy of setting up a chapter?
Who is the "us" in this question?
2008/5/4, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
--- On Sun, 5/4/08, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
From: Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, May 4, 2008, 2:24 AM
Chapters can handle donations, press contacts, organize larger events and so on. Some of that needs a core team at a certain place, most of the jobs are not connected with the geographic placements of active members.
Since all of this is handled in the US, why do people expect us to waste our time on bureaucracy of setting up a chapter?
Birgitte SB
If you don't see a need for a chapter, then you should not bother to set one up of course :) Otherwise the chapter would be kind of useless indeed. If the members don't beleive in it, the chapter will not work. I do not think that anyone would want to suggest that one *should* set up a chapter, but people can of course point out what the possible advantages are. It's then up to you (anyone who could set up a chapter) to find out whether the pro's outweight the con's
Lodewijk
--- On Sun, 5/4/08, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
From: effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, May 4, 2008, 9:02 AM 2008/5/4, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
--- On Sun, 5/4/08, Henning Schlottmann
h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
From: Henning Schlottmann
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected
Board seats - brainstorming
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, May 4, 2008, 2:24 AM
Chapters can handle donations, press contacts,
organize
larger events and so on. Some of that needs a core team at a
certain
place, most of the jobs are not connected with the geographic
placements
of active members.
Since all of this is handled in the US, why do people
expect us to waste our time on bureaucracy of setting up a chapter?
Birgitte SB
If you don't see a need for a chapter, then you should not bother to set one up of course :) Otherwise the chapter would be kind of useless indeed. If the members don't beleive in it, the chapter will not work. I do not think that anyone would want to suggest that one *should* set up a chapter, but people can of course point out what the possible advantages are. It's then up to you (anyone who could set up a chapter) to find out whether the pro's outweight the con's
Lodewijk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
--- On Sun, 5/4/08, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, May 4, 2008, 9:45 AM --- On Sun, 5/4/08, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
From: effe iets anders
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board
seats - brainstorming
To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation
Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Sunday, May 4, 2008, 9:02 AM 2008/5/4, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
--- On Sun, 5/4/08, Henning Schlottmann
h.schlottmann@gmx.net wrote:
From: Henning Schlottmann
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
Chapter-selected
Board seats - brainstorming
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, May 4, 2008, 2:24 AM
Chapters can handle donations, press
contacts,
organize
larger events and so on. Some of that needs a core team
at a
certain
place, most of the jobs are not connected with the
geographic
placements
of active members.
Since all of this is handled in the US, why do
people
expect us to waste our time on bureaucracy of setting
up a
chapter?
Birgitte SB
If you don't see a need for a chapter, then you
should
not bother to set one up of course :) Otherwise the chapter would be
kind
of useless indeed. If the members don't beleive in it, the
chapter
will not work. I do not think that anyone would want to suggest that
one
*should* set up a chapter, but people can of course point out what
the
possible advantages are. It's then up to you (anyone who
could
set up a chapter) to find out whether the pro's outweight
the
con's The board suggested in the restructuring FAQ said:
"We acknowledge that giving the chapters an official voice in the governance of the Foundation makes it more important than before, that chapters -as much as possible- reflect the full range of Wikimedia supporters. Therefore, we now want to encourage the creation of sub-national chapters in the United States." [1]
This is where my interest in the US chapter information stems from. So please don't patronize me that the US is asking for attention or making an issue out of something that should simply be neglected if the need is not felt. The only reason there is an issue at all is that people from outside of the US are insisting there should not be sub-national chapters without a national one. Perhaps I should have ignored them rather than started this attempt I have been making to see those concerns addressed.
Birgitte SB [1]http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Restructure_Announceme...
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
2008/5/4, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
The board suggested in the restructuring FAQ said:
"We acknowledge that giving the chapters an official voice in the governance of the Foundation makes it more important than before, that chapters -as much as possible- reflect the full range of Wikimedia supporters. Therefore, we now want to encourage the creation of sub-national chapters in the United States." [1]
This is where my interest in the US chapter information stems from. So please don't patronize me that the US is asking for attention or making an issue out of something that should simply be neglected if the need is not felt. The only reason there is an issue at all is that people from outside of the US are insisting there should not be sub-national chapters without a national one. Perhaps I should have ignored them rather than started this attempt I have been making to see those concerns addressed.
Birgitte SB [1]http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Restructure_Announceme...
Yeah, you are right, the FAQ seems to suggest that indeed. OK, I should reword my statement probably to something along the lines that I do not want to tell people that they should set up a chapter. I agree that the balance of pro's and con's has been changed somewhat since the board restructuring yes. But after all, it remains so that the volunteers running the chapter should decide whether it is worth it. Whether things are worth the trouble.
BR, Lodewijk
--- On Sun, 5/4/08, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
From: effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <C> Date: Sunday, May 4, 2008, 9:59 AM 2008/5/4, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
The board suggested in the restructuring FAQ
said:
"We acknowledge that giving the chapters an
official voice in the governance of the Foundation makes it more important than before, that chapters -as much as possible- reflect the full range of Wikimedia supporters. Therefore, we now want to encourage the creation of sub-national chapters in the United States." [1]
This is where my interest in the US chapter
information stems from. So please don't patronize me that the US is asking for attention or making an issue out of something that should simply be neglected if the need is not felt. The only reason there is an issue at all is that people from outside of the US are insisting there should not be sub-national chapters without a national one. Perhaps I should have ignored them rather than started this attempt I have been making to see those concerns addressed.
Birgitte SB
[1]http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Restructure_Announceme...
Yeah, you are right, the FAQ seems to suggest that indeed. OK, I should reword my statement probably to something along the lines that I do not want to tell people that they should set up a chapter. I agree that the balance of pro's and con's has been changed somewhat since the board restructuring yes. But after all, it remains so that the volunteers running the chapter should decide whether it is worth it. Whether things are worth the trouble.
Thank you. I am personally uncertain whether things are worth the trouble. That is why I am trying to get answers on why the board and people who believe chapters to be important think US chapter(s) to be worthwhile.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Thank you. I am personally uncertain whether things are worth the trouble. That is why I am trying to get answers on why the board and people who believe chapters to be important think US chapter(s) to be worthwhile.
I think the main impetus for them right now is to gain a voice in the selection of chapter representatives on the board. However, hopefully this whole messy conversation will convince those who work out the details of the chapter representative selection to basically subvert the whole idea. As I said before, nothing seems to stop the chapters from deciding that the chapter representatives will be selected via the standard election process. In fact, there wouldn't even need to be a separate vote.
Maybe in the longer term the chapter selection process can be worked out, but chapters don't seem to be widespread enough to make it work at this time. It's not just the US. There are numerous places in the world that don't have chapters set up.
2008/5/4, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I think the main impetus for them right now is to gain a voice in the selection of chapter representatives on the board.
In my opinion, if the selection process of chapter representatives is the main purpose of setting up a chapter, I think it is not worth the trouble. If you want to set up a chapter, that should be to be able to better devide the limited resources and to advocate free content and licenses, not some political process.
Lodewijk
Birgitte SB wrote:
--- On Sun, 5/4/08, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
From: effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <C> Date: Sunday, May 4, 2008, 9:59 AM 2008/5/4, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
The board suggested in the restructuring FAQ
said:
"We acknowledge that giving the chapters an
official voice in the governance of the Foundation makes it more important than before, that chapters -as much as possible- reflect the full range of Wikimedia supporters. Therefore, we now want to encourage the creation of sub-national chapters in the United States." [1]
This is where my interest in the US chapter
information stems from. So please don't patronize me that the US is asking for attention or making an issue out of something that should simply be neglected if the need is not felt. The only reason there is an issue at all is that people from outside of the US are insisting there should not be sub-national chapters without a national one. Perhaps I should have ignored them rather than started this attempt I have been making to see those concerns addressed.
Birgitte SB
[1]http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Restructure_Announceme...
Yeah, you are right, the FAQ seems to suggest that indeed. OK, I should reword my statement probably to something along the lines that I do not want to tell people that they should set up a chapter. I agree that the balance of pro's and con's has been changed somewhat since the board restructuring yes. But after all, it remains so that the volunteers running the chapter should decide whether it is worth it. Whether things are worth the trouble.
Thank you. I am personally uncertain whether things are worth the trouble.
That is why I am trying to get answers on why the board and people who believe chapters to be important think US chapter(s) to be worthwhile.
Birgitte SB
The way I understood it when we drafted the text is this: We felt that various people considered that the board was not supportive of the creation of a USA chapter; From the moment when the chapters have a say in the board membership, it seemed likely that part of the community could have complained that American citizens would not be able to have a voice about these reserved chapters given that the board did not allow US chapters. As such, what our sentence primarily meant was that the board would not oppose the creation of a USA chapter.
It does not mean that we know or have a clear opinion on how to deal with state level - city level - library level etc..., It does not mean that we yet know what these chapters would do it simply means that on the principle, we'll be happy to approve a USA chapter ... or USA chapters, or USA chocolate cake, or something, that will make it possible for USA citizens to get involved at board membership level.
HMMM, I hope I am clear ;-)
ant
I'm going to be cursed for top-posting, but c'est la vie.
The United States is a unique country made up of fifty separate states. A great number of these states are geographically large enough to hold small European countries like the one I live in - Belgium - and have plenty room left to spare. When you look at some of these states, say, California, they have a GDP that would put them in the top ten or twenty global economies. There are a variety of other aspects of the U.S. that make it unique, but none which in my opinion merit giving it a special status.
I believe U.S. chapters should be encouraged, and it is up to their potential members to decide how to structure them. Yes, with the WMF being a U.S. registered entity there may be details that differ from those of other chapters, they may be sub-entities as opposed to independent in their own right. This is no reason to assume they would be under-represented at WMF board level.
I've not followed a lot of this discussion as it has simply been too high volume. There are too many people shoot first and ask questions later. However, why would a situation where the various chapters select their candidates and put them forward for a WMF-wide election not be reasonable? A global election for the seats in question, but the candidates selected at a more local level by the chapters. Candidates who have their chapter's endorsement and are a lot more serious than people who'd suggest things like shutting down everything but Wikipedia.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Florence Devouard Sent: 04 May 2008 17:56 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming
Birgitte SB wrote:
--- On Sun, 5/4/08, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
From: effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <C> Date: Sunday, May 4, 2008, 9:59 AM 2008/5/4, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
The board suggested in the restructuring FAQ
said:
"We acknowledge that giving the chapters an
official voice in the governance of the Foundation makes it more important than before, that chapters -as much as possible- reflect the full range of Wikimedia supporters. Therefore, we now want to encourage the creation of sub-national chapters in the United States." [1]
This is where my interest in the US chapter
information stems from. So please don't patronize me that the US is asking for attention or making an issue out of something that should simply be neglected if the need is not felt. The only reason there is an issue at all is that people from outside of the US are insisting there should not be sub-national chapters without a national one. Perhaps I should have ignored them rather than started this attempt I have been making to see those concerns addressed.
Birgitte SB
[1]http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Restructure_Announc ement_Q%26A
Yeah, you are right, the FAQ seems to suggest that indeed. OK, I should reword my statement probably to something along the lines that I do not want to tell people that they should set up a chapter. I agree that the balance of pro's and con's has been changed somewhat since the board restructuring yes. But after all, it remains so that the volunteers running the chapter should decide whether it is worth it. Whether things are worth the trouble.
Thank you. I am personally uncertain whether things are worth the
trouble. That is why I am trying to get answers on why the board and people who believe chapters to be important think US chapter(s) to be worthwhile.
Birgitte SB
The way I understood it when we drafted the text is this: We felt that various people considered that the board was not supportive of the creation of a USA chapter; From the moment when the chapters have a say in the board membership, it seemed likely that part of the community could have complained that American citizens would not be able to have a voice about these reserved chapters given that the board did not allow US chapters. As such, what our sentence primarily meant was that the board would not oppose the creation of a USA chapter.
It does not mean that we know or have a clear opinion on how to deal with state level - city level - library level etc..., It does not mean that we yet know what these chapters would do it simply means that on the principle, we'll be happy to approve a USA chapter ... or USA chapters, or USA chocolate cake, or something, that will make it possible for USA citizens to get involved at board membership level.
HMMM, I hope I am clear ;-)
ant
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Florence Devouard wrote:
The way I understood it when we drafted the text is this: We felt that various people considered that the board was not supportive of the creation of a USA chapter; From the moment when the chapters have a say in the board membership, it seemed likely that part of the community could have complained that American citizens would not be able to have a voice about these reserved chapters given that the board did not allow US chapters. As such, what our sentence primarily meant was that the board would not oppose the creation of a USA chapter.
It does not mean that we know or have a clear opinion on how to deal with state level - city level - library level etc..., It does not mean that we yet know what these chapters would do it simply means that on the principle, we'll be happy to approve a USA chapter ... or USA chapters, or USA chocolate cake, or something, that will make it possible for USA citizens to get involved at board membership level.
As the chapter representation discussion develops the impression that I get is that the whole thing was poorly thought out.
I have no problem with the general idea of chapter representation on the Board, but American representation is the kind of problem that the Board should have foreseen before it went ahead and resolved that there would be chapter representatives by a certain date. The Board seems to have forgotten the lesson of the first election when one elected person would represent the editors in general, and the other would depend on some notion of membership. The idea didn't work, and we ended up with two trustees who essentially represented the first of these groups.
Perhaps the Board should have sought a working paper from the Chapters Committee before embarking on this path, by asking the simple question, "We are considering chapter representation on the Board, please advise us how this might best be done."
Ec
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The Board seems to have forgotten the lesson of the first election when one elected person would represent the editors in general, and the other would depend on some notion of membership.
Not to nitpick, but one elected person represented the "volunteer active membership", and one represented the "contributing active membership".
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
The way I understood it when we drafted the text is this: We felt that various people considered that the board was not supportive of the creation of a USA chapter; From the moment when the chapters have a say in the board membership, it seemed likely that part of the community could have complained that American citizens would not be able to have a voice about these reserved chapters given that the board did not allow US chapters. As such, what our sentence primarily meant was that the board would not oppose the creation of a USA chapter.
It does not mean that we know or have a clear opinion on how to deal with state level - city level - library level etc..., It does not mean that we yet know what these chapters would do it simply means that on the principle, we'll be happy to approve a USA chapter ... or USA chapters, or USA chocolate cake, or something, that will make it possible for USA citizens to get involved at board membership level.
As the chapter representation discussion develops the impression that I get is that the whole thing was poorly thought out.
I have no problem with the general idea of chapter representation on the Board, but American representation is the kind of problem that the Board should have foreseen before it went ahead and resolved that there would be chapter representatives by a certain date. The Board seems to have forgotten the lesson of the first election when one elected person would represent the editors in general, and the other would depend on some notion of membership. The idea didn't work, and we ended up with two trustees who essentially represented the first of these groups.
Perhaps the Board should have sought a working paper from the Chapters Committee before embarking on this path, by asking the simple question, "We are considering chapter representation on the Board, please advise us how this might best be done."
Ec
You may not have interpretated our decision in the right way Ec.
We have essentially said to the chapters, "we want chapter representation on the board and we have decided to reserve two seats on that regard. Now, please advise on how this might be best done, report to us, the WMF board will approve this procedure, then the two representants will be selected according to this procedure".
The only big difference with what you suggest is that rather than asking the chapters IF they wanted to be represented on the board, we told them it would happen.
Now, you may consider that this was mere authoritarianism; my own feeling is that it was not. I can remember several discussions with chapter members, where those pointed out that it was not fair that the Foundation had so much power over chapters and chapters had so little (with regards to tms uses in particular). It was felt that in a partnership, checks and balances required that chapters have more of a say than they had. And I heard several times that it would be fitting that chapters have one seat on the board.
So, it may not be entirely surprising that the board decided to skip that step.
Now, for all the coming steps, we are waiting for advice on how this might best be done.
Ant
2008/5/4, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
You may not have interpretated our decision in the right way Ec.
We have essentially said to the chapters, "we want chapter representation on the board and we have decided to reserve two seats on that regard. Now, please advise on how this might be best done, report to us, the WMF board will approve this procedure, then the two representants will be selected according to this procedure".
I must say that I totally missed this "approval" part too...
Lodewijk
effe iets anders wrote:
2008/5/4, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
You may not have interpretated our decision in the right way Ec.
We have essentially said to the chapters, "we want chapter representation on the board and we have decided to reserve two seats on that regard. Now, please advise on how this might be best done, report to us, the WMF board will approve this procedure, then the two representants will be selected according to this procedure".
I must say that I totally missed this "approval" part too...
Lodewijk
From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Restructure_Announceme...
Can the chapters select the chapter-selected seats whenever they want?
Yes. The chapters will need to define a process for selecting those seats. That process will need to be approved by a majority of the chapters, and by the board. Once that's been done, they are free to make the selections whenever they want.
Ant
Given that the WMF is aware of the issues facing incorporation in different states and the difficulties set up as such, combined with the fact that we already have 3 in development chapters from 3 major metropolitan regions, I'm personally willing to bet that a "one nation one chapter" rule would at the very least have to have an exception for the US and other large countries with dispersed metropolitan centers. Due to the highly sovereign nature of the several states, compared with their massive size difference compared to Europe, I don't see any other choice.
-Dan On May 3, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Countries in Europe have states too. Thanks, GerardM
I don't deny that, though I do wonder if we're using the same sense of the term "state". I don't mean to include mere administrative divisions.
US states have their own laws, their own income and sales taxes, and they each handle incorporation separately. In fact, a corporation which does business in more than one state has to keep separate accounting for each state and file as a foreign corporation in each state apart from the first. There are, as Sebastian questioned, significant legal, if not tax, advantages to having a separate organization in each state.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Given that the WMF is aware of the issues facing incorporation in different states and the difficulties set up as such, combined with the fact that we already have 3 in development chapters from 3 major metropolitan regions, I'm personally willing to bet that a "one nation one chapter" rule would at the very least have to have an exception for the US and other large countries with dispersed metropolitan centers. Due to the highly sovereign nature of the several states, compared with their massive size difference compared to Europe, I don't see any other choice.
Dan, I don't see why we shouldn't organize as autonomous "affiliates". This will give us the full tax advantages of a non-profit (because of our connection to WMF), without even having to become incorporated.
If we have to vote for chapter seats on the Board or anything else, we can just pool our votes.
Thanks, Pharos
On May 3, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Countries in Europe have states too. Thanks, GerardM
I don't deny that, though I do wonder if we're using the same sense of the term "state". I don't mean to include mere administrative divisions.
US states have their own laws, their own income and sales taxes, and they each handle incorporation separately. In fact, a corporation which does business in more than one state has to keep separate accounting for each state and file as a foreign corporation in each state apart from the first. There are, as Sebastian questioned, significant legal, if not tax, advantages to having a separate organization in each state.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Because the WMF may not want a direct connection with the chapters. Take WMF UK or DE for example. They operate on their own, separate from the foundation, and do quite well enough. Operating as an affiliate underneath the WMF brings liability issues that can be avoided by simply having a separate organization. Besides, that's what the chapter creation guide suggests. There's no reason not to create a corporate entity that I can see.
-Dan On May 3, 2008, at 6:20 PM, Pharos wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Given that the WMF is aware of the issues facing incorporation in different states and the difficulties set up as such, combined with the fact that we already have 3 in development chapters from 3 major metropolitan regions, I'm personally willing to bet that a "one nation one chapter" rule would at the very least have to have an exception for the US and other large countries with dispersed metropolitan centers. Due to the highly sovereign nature of the several states, compared with their massive size difference compared to Europe, I don't see any other choice.
Dan, I don't see why we shouldn't organize as autonomous "affiliates". This will give us the full tax advantages of a non-profit (because of our connection to WMF), without even having to become incorporated.
If we have to vote for chapter seats on the Board or anything else, we can just pool our votes.
Thanks, Pharos
On May 3, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Countries in Europe have states too. Thanks, GerardM
I don't deny that, though I do wonder if we're using the same sense of the term "state". I don't mean to include mere administrative divisions.
US states have their own laws, their own income and sales taxes, and they each handle incorporation separately. In fact, a corporation which does business in more than one state has to keep separate accounting for each state and file as a foreign corporation in each state apart from the first. There are, as Sebastian questioned, significant legal, if not tax, advantages to having a separate organization in each state.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, that's what the chapter creation guide suggests. There's no reason not to create a corporate entity that I can see.
The primary (if not only) reason we have separate copororate entities internationally is because a US-based foundation can only create affiliates within the US.
I can only see a huge waste of resources in creating 5 or 10 new corporate entities in the US, when the one we have now works just fine.
Thanks, Pharos
On May 3, 2008, at 6:20 PM, Pharos wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Given that the WMF is aware of the issues facing incorporation in different states and the difficulties set up as such, combined with the fact that we already have 3 in development chapters from 3 major metropolitan regions, I'm personally willing to bet that a "one nation one chapter" rule would at the very least have to have an exception for the US and other large countries with dispersed metropolitan centers. Due to the highly sovereign nature of the several states, compared with their massive size difference compared to Europe, I don't see any other choice.
Dan, I don't see why we shouldn't organize as autonomous "affiliates". This will give us the full tax advantages of a non-profit (because of our connection to WMF), without even having to become incorporated.
If we have to vote for chapter seats on the Board or anything else, we can just pool our votes.
Thanks, Pharos
On May 3, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Countries in Europe have states too. Thanks, GerardM
I don't deny that, though I do wonder if we're using the same sense of the term "state". I don't mean to include mere administrative divisions.
US states have their own laws, their own income and sales taxes, and they each handle incorporation separately. In fact, a corporation which does business in more than one state has to keep separate accounting for each state and file as a foreign corporation in each state apart from the first. There are, as Sebastian questioned, significant legal, if not tax, advantages to having a separate organization in each state.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, May 4, 2008 03:23, Pharos wrote:
The primary (if not only) reason we have separate copororate entities internationally is because a US-based foundation can only create affiliates within the US.
I can only see a huge waste of resources in creating 5 or 10 new corporate entities in the US, when the one we have now works just fine.
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but you are completely off track here. The Foundation will *never* "create" affiliates (ie Chapters) as that would mean they are creating a legal connection between the people comprising that Chapter, The Foundation can "suggest" that a Chapter is formed, it can "hope" or "assist" that one is formed, but in every case of a new Chapter it *must* be legally separate from the Foundation (and, indeed, other Chapters).
So far Chapters have been based on nation states; countries. Just as the UK is covered by a single Chapter (WMUK) even though it covers multiple and separate legal systems (ie. Scotland) the same is true to a similar extent for the USA. Yes, the USA will also have multiple regional/metro/state/whatever sub-groups within its nationwide Chapter, as it should be, but it shouldn't get special treatment just because it may one day be larger or shouts louder. The Wikimedia projects are virtual; the size of your country doesn't matter!
We have a mechanism for piping information and advice between Chapters and the Foundation; the Chapter Co-ordinator (Delphine) and I see no reason to change that.
Alison Wheeler
Ludicrous. Please explain why the smallest countries in the world don't have large projects? Larger, more populous countries can support more people in chapters, can support more fundraising, and more outreach/partnership opportunities. The concept that "size doesn't matter" is ridiculous: it does matter, even though the virtual "motion of the ocean" might be vigorous.
-Dan On May 5, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Alison Wheeler wrote:
The Wikimedia projects are virtual; the size of your country doesn't matter!
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 12:11 -0400, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Ludicrous. Please explain why the smallest countries in the world don't have large projects? Larger, more populous countries can support more people in chapters, can support more fundraising, and more outreach/partnership opportunities. The concept that "size doesn't matter" is ridiculous: it does matter, even though the virtual "motion of the ocean" might be vigorous.
Marshall Islands has the biggest Wikimedian project, while Lichtenstein has the second biggest ;)
It is not about countries, it is about languages.
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2008 03:23, Pharos wrote:
The primary (if not only) reason we have separate copororate entities internationally is because a US-based foundation can only create affiliates within the US.
I can only see a huge waste of resources in creating 5 or 10 new corporate entities in the US, when the one we have now works just fine.
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but you are completely off track here. The Foundation will *never* "create" affiliates (ie Chapters) as that would mean they are creating a legal connection between the people comprising that Chapter, The Foundation can "suggest" that a Chapter is formed, it can "hope" or "assist" that one is formed, but in every case of a new Chapter it *must* be legally separate from the Foundation (and, indeed, other Chapters).
The WMF wouldn't "create" affiliates; these would be created by local Wikimedians, and recognized and accorded "group exemption" status by the WMF, as it may see fit, in its capacity as 'de facto' "Wikimedia US". This isn't some crazy new legal theory. The US affiliates would have the same relationship to the WMF as chapters of the American Red Cross do to it.
Thanks, Pharos
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2008 03:23, Pharos wrote:
The primary (if not only) reason we have separate copororate entities internationally is because a US-based foundation can only create affiliates within the US.
I can only see a huge waste of resources in creating 5 or 10 new corporate entities in the US, when the one we have now works just fine.
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but you are completely off track here. The Foundation will *never* "create" affiliates (ie Chapters) as that would mean they are creating a legal connection between the people comprising that Chapter, The Foundation can "suggest" that a Chapter is formed, it can "hope" or "assist" that one is formed, but in every case of a new Chapter it *must* be legally separate from the Foundation (and, indeed, other Chapters).
The WMF wouldn't "create" affiliates; these would be created by local Wikimedians, and recognized and accorded "group exemption" status by the WMF, as it may see fit, in its capacity as 'de facto' "Wikimedia US". This isn't some crazy new legal theory. The US affiliates would have the same relationship to the WMF as chapters of the American Red Cross do to it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the chapters of the American Red Cross created as separate corporate entities? The decision of whether or not to be an affiliate should come after the corporation is formed and the initial membership and board are determined. Then the board (of the chapter) can talk to the WMF about whether electing to be an affiliate makes sense, and the membership can vote on this decision as well.
My understanding is that "affiliate" is a federal tax distinction, and nothing more.
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
The WMF wouldn't "create" affiliates; these would be created by local Wikimedians, and recognized and accorded "group exemption" status by the WMF, as it may see fit, in its capacity as 'de facto' "Wikimedia US". This isn't some crazy new legal theory. The US affiliates would have the same relationship to the WMF as chapters of the American Red Cross do to it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the chapters of the American Red Cross created as separate corporate entities?
They're separate entities, but they do not have to be incorporated. That's the whole point of "group exemption", that some American Red Cross post in a small town does not need to be incorporated to share non-profit status.
The decision of whether or not to be an affiliate should come after the corporation is formed and the initial membership and board are determined. Then the board (of the chapter) can talk to the WMF about whether electing to be an affiliate makes sense, and the membership can vote on this decision as well.
We certainly do plan to apply to the WMF in this way, but again we do not have to be incorporated (though we would have a board and bylaws) under "group exemption".
My understanding is that "affiliate" is a federal tax distinction, and nothing more.
We have been using terms a bit loosely. From now on, let's call them "group exemption organizations".
Thanks, Pharos
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
The WMF wouldn't "create" affiliates; these would be created by local Wikimedians, and recognized and accorded "group exemption" status by the WMF, as it may see fit, in its capacity as 'de facto' "Wikimedia US". This isn't some crazy new legal theory. The US affiliates would have the same relationship to the WMF as chapters of the American Red Cross do to it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the chapters of the American Red Cross created as separate corporate entities?
They're separate entities, but they do not have to be incorporated. That's the whole point of "group exemption", that some American Red Cross post in a small town does not need to be incorporated to share non-profit status.
A group does not have to be incorporated in order to obtain a 501(c)(3) exemption. They can create articles of association and obtain an EIN as an unincoporated association and file for a determination letter using that EIN.
I seriously doubt any American Red Cross chapters have done this, though.
See IRS Publication 4573 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/p4573.pdf) and IRS Revenue Procedure 80-27 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rp1980-27.pdf).
"The IRS sometimes recognizes a group of organizations as tax-exempt if they are affiliated with a central organization.This avoids the need for each of the organizations to apply for exemption individually. A group exemption letter has the same effect as an individual exemption letter except that it applies to more than one organization."
The purpose of affiliation is to avoid the need for filing separate Form 1023s.
The decision of whether or not to be an affiliate should come after the corporation is formed and the initial membership and board are determined. Then the board (of the chapter) can talk to the WMF about whether electing to be an affiliate makes sense, and the membership can vote on this decision as well.
We certainly do plan to apply to the WMF in this way, but again we do not have to be incorporated (though we would have a board and bylaws) under "group exemption".
Right. You don't *have* to be incorporated. But depending on what types of activities you plan on engaging in, you might want to. This is true regardless of whether or not you intend to obtain a group exemption, though.
My understanding is that "affiliate" is a federal tax distinction, and nothing more.
We have been using terms a bit loosely. From now on, let's call them "group exemption organizations".
Fair enough. But again, this is just a federal tax distinction. It lets you file a bit less paperwork to get your 501(c)(3) determination letter. Of course, if the gross receipts of the organization are less than $5000/year, there is no requirement to get a determination letter in the first place (IRC 508(c)(1)(b)). And if your gross receipts for the year are less than $5000, then
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
lOf course, if the gross receipts of the organization are less than $5000/year, there is no requirement to get a determination letter in the first place (IRC 508(c)(1)(b)).
Thanks Anthony. I think it makes most sense to go with 508(c)(1)(b) for now, since I don't think we'll have a large budget for the first year or two.
I still think a "group exemption" might make sense in the long run, since I was more concerned with the 501(c)(3) paperwork than simply filing incorporation papers.
Thanks, Pharos
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
They're separate entities, but they do not have to be incorporated. That's the whole point of "group exemption"
By the way, here in Florida, incorporation costs $70 and takes about 10 minutes. I'm not sure how this compares to other states, but I doubt it's that big of a deal.
Anthony wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Easy you answer it yourself. The USA is one country under God, Europe is not. Thanks, GerardM
I've never referred to the USA as "one country under God", but this begs the question as to whether being "one country" matters at all. The USA is not "one state under God". (I've never called it "one country under God" either, but that's irrelevant.)
Anthony neglects to mention that the language in the US Pledge of Allegiance is "one nation under God" rather than "country". Since Gerard presumably did not regularly recite the pledge as a child, it's understandable that he might get a word wrong. (There's also the issue about the phrase "under God" being a later addition to the text, but that's a matter for a separate debate.)
We can easily lose ourselves in the semantics of similar-but-not-identical concepts like state, country, and nation. With the latter, perhaps we need to look more at the native peoples of North America. That would be a very different approach to having multiple chapters in the US, for example. I can think of people who might take an interest then - Mark Williamson, or Jeff Merkey. Any takers?
--Michael Snow
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Easy you answer it yourself. The USA is one country under God, Europe is not.
This really only makes a difference if you let political geography dictate our choices. I don't see any obvious reason why that should be the case. Rather, we always have to come back to (1) what purposes chapters serve and (2) what structure best accomodates those purposes. Ignoring all things political and legal for a minute, it seems to me that, if any of the following criteria are fulfilled, a chapter should be eligible to be formed: * there's a sufficient number of people the chapter would cover with its activities and could draw from for donations * there's a sufficient legal or tax advantage that could be exploited (e.g. tax-deductibility of charitable donations)
Apart from these criteria, why do things like borders matter?
Sebastian
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Sebastian Moleski sebmol@gmail.com wrote:
This really only makes a difference if you let political geography dictate our choices. I don't see any obvious reason why that should be the case. Rather, we always have to come back to (1) what purposes chapters serve and (2) what structure best accomodates those purposes. Ignoring all things political and legal for a minute, it seems to me that, if any of the following criteria are fulfilled, a chapter should be eligible to be formed:
- there's a sufficient number of people the chapter would cover with its
activities and could draw from for donations
- there's a sufficient legal or tax advantage that could be exploited (e.g.
tax-deductibility of charitable donations)
Apart from these criteria, why do things like borders matter?
If I may, legal or tax advantages are usually not tied to some "virtual cutout" of the world. They are very much tied to "political and geographical borders".
So yes, I believe borders matter, whether we want it or not.
Delphine
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If the EU has more than one chapter, why not the US?
Let's wait till the EU has one president rather than a dozen before we can actualy make this comparison :-)
Delphine
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org