Hello Philip, I was asking the same question - isn't there already a Wikimedia Rossiya - but I guess this is the User Group of Saint Petersburg in Florida (USA), not Sankt Peterburg in Russia. Oh wait... this IS about the city in Russia! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Saint_Petersburg_User_Group Kind regards Ziko Am Do., 3. Okt. 2019 um 16:15 Uhr schrieb Philip Kopetzky < philip.kopetzky(a)gmail.com&gt;gt;:

Why isn't it a department of Wikimedia Russia, if apparently it's basically a cell of Wikimedia Russia? It's a curious precedent. Paulo Asaf Bartov &lt;abartov(a)wikimedia.org&gt; escreveu no dia quinta, 3/10/2019 à(s) 20:41:

Wales is a whole country complete with it's own language, I don't believe it compares with a city UG. Paulo Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; escreveu no dia quinta, 3/10/2019 à(s) 22:53:

Wikimedia NYC is a very different situation, there is not a national chapter in the US, so it's not a cell of anything. Just to clarify: Saint Petersburg eventually could not be a cell, but the way it is presented (to promote Wikimedia RU activities in SP, with same Wikimedia RU people), it's basically a cell. Paulo Yuri Astrakhan &lt;yuriastrakhan(a)gmail.com&gt; escreveu no dia quinta, 3/10/2019 à(s) 23:06:

I can only reiterate what Lodewijk said - I'm trying to find the approach and goals in the decision to acknowledge user groups that seem to be an integral part (or from an outside perspective, should be) of the national chapter. In the past this has been an indicator of personal conflicts within a chapter or user group and AffCom perpetuating these conflicts by setting up competing affiliates (the situation in Albania being a recent example of this). Best, Philip On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 06:33, effe iets anders &lt;effeietsanders(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Sure, if you want to see it through that lens I guess you could argue such. However, just to put things in perspective: 1) if a group has more active cores, maybe they should be more broadly represented in Berlin. Maybe these constructs shouldn't be necessary. 2) No matter how much some care about the ASBS, I doubt that this will be a driving force to get more bureaucracy (because that is the cost of setting up a UG). 3) funding for local activities is probably not really a consideration in the case of Russia, where foreign funding is (to put it mildly) 'complicated'. Lets assume for the sake of the discussion that the group has legitimate reasons to request affiliate status (although I have my assumptions, I'm curious what tipped the scale). Lodewijk On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:01 AM Paulo Santos Perneta &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

BTW, I seem to recall that in last ASBS election, affiliates which presented something like 70% member overlap with another affiliate would not be allowed to participate in the process. If this practice is kept, it avoids gaming the system (intentionally or unintentionally) through a multiplication of affiliates which are basically cells or clones of one of them. If this is safeguarded, cell-style affiliates probably can become a nice feature. Paulo Paulo Santos Perneta &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; escreveu no dia sábado, 5/10/2019 à(s) 00:45:

Thanks for the clarification and the insights. This could be a really interesting organizative model for huge countries, even for countries with more than one chapter but not a country level one, as happens in the USA. 2019 urr. 5 4:38 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin &lt;frhd(a)yandex.com&gt;)m>): Hi folks, I can probably comment this, as a member of both Wikimedia Russia and a Tatar language-specific UG. On top of participation in Wikimedia Language Diversity initiative on meta, I am also contemplating and working towards starting a territory-specific UG for my region + an incubator UG for more language-specific UG in the languages of Russia. Wikimedians of Russia seem to see the matreshkas of (1) "global conference - regional conference - topic-specific conferences" & (2) WMF & affiliates general meeting - national chapters - UGs" as natural structures, each addressing different tasks, having different priorities, whilst cooperating in various projects. * Wikimedia Russia legal requirements (in-person quorum for decision-making, etc.) doesn't allow us to accept into membership all members of all our regional, language or topic specific UGs. So our chapter is evolving towards a mixed confederation status, selectively welcoming some members from various groupings around Russia (which themselves can't be neither cells nor branches of WMRU). * SPB is not purely a city, but a one of 85 provinces (read states) of the Russian Federation (like my home Republic of Tatarstan, neighbouring Republic of Bashkortostan with its Bashkir Wiki-grandmas, or a city of Moscow). * Once we will spin out UG MSK, we will complete transforming Wikimedia Russia into a collective entity for join tasks, working on national-level advocacy & other projects. * We currently have 5 existing UGs, have two more filed & at least one more at the preparation stage - as this is a good way to engage locally or topically interested public into Wikimedia universe. regards, farhad -- Farhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин Тел.+79274158066 / skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan / Wikidata:Q34036417 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Sorry, people, but I would like to read an official statement of the WMF (committee) what is the reason or rationale behind this policy to accept WM user groups in countries where you already have a chapter. Does anybody have a link? Kind regards Ziko Am Sa., 5. Okt. 2019 um 19:16 Uhr schrieb Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt;gt;:

Hi Ziko, When WMPT was forced by AffCom early this year to change the old chapter agreement we had signed in 2009 for a new one, which we were told was the current model for everyone, the main difference between the two was precisely the end of the chapter hegemony over the national territory. We were told, back then, that those were the new rules. You can read it here: https://pt.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_agreement Personally, I don't mind that in the least. If some caution is taken by AffCom, e.g., to not approve rogue affiliates which at it's very inception are already at war with the national chapter (or "post/pre"-chapter affiliate, as AffCom has done in Brazil back in 2015, causing all the mess everybody knows), all is cool. Spain has already something like 5 or 6 affiliates, and they seem to live happily in peace. If it works, let it go. Best, Paulo Ziko van Dijk &lt;zvandijk(a)gmail.com&gt; escreveu no dia segunda, 7/10/2019 à(s) 12:50: