Chiming in as a former board observer on chapcom and affcom for 2 years:

I recommend any geographic group that thinks it makes sense for them to organize more formally to discuss the idea on meta and with affcom. There's nothing 'wrong' with any particular geographical affiliation: in our movement we have large city-level, region-level, national and supra-national entities.

Some are called Chapters and occasionally vote in the 2-3 Chapter processes that exist. Some have other names - Iberocoop or Amical or Wikimedia Oceania. (no wait, that last one doesn't exist yet :)

I did not observe a particular committee stance on what can and can't happen among subnational / regional chapters.

* There's a general desire to see national chapters where possible.

* There are lots of different views about subnational groups.

(For instance, if the US ends up with 100 subnational groups, there would probably be a discussion about how to consolidate them at least for the purposes of voting on global decisions.)

* Applications by regions larger than cities would probably be fine - write about the idea on meta and ask for feedback.

* Applications by a national group that has a specific idea of how it would work with the existing subnational groups, including subnational chapters, would also be fine

* Applications or general discussions about supranational groups such as Iberocoop and Wikimedia-Asia are also of interest to affcom; both that model and the chapter model are things that groups across the US could consider.

My personal view is that large chapters are fine, and some have been quite successful. The determining factor in [chapter/affiliate] success is the quality and coherence and vision of its team, not its geography.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Michael C. Berch <mcb@postmodern.com> wrote:

Why on earth should there be arbitrary and restrictive rules about the geographical composition of local chapters of an informal volunteer organization? There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities" is an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people.

--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266