On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
Tonight in #wikimedia-us at 6 PM Pacific will be the next Wikimedia US meeting. Included on the agenda is discussion of the proposed Wikimedia Cascadia chapter.
Possible geography for the Chapter includes California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska until such time as some of these areas have more localized chapters. Also under discussion is asking WM-Canada to share British Columbia with WM-Cascadia.
Please join the discussion in #wikimedia-us, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia, and/or https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Cascadia.
Anyone who is interested in discussing a potential chapter that would include the Bay area, please join the discussion!
Pine
I may not be able to make it, but wanted to express interest and bring up one point of discussion...
In the past, I have informally asked Chapter Committee members about the possibility of a chapter like this. I was told with no equivocation that chapters which officially spanned multiple municipalities were forbidden, and that we could have a Wikimedia Oregon, Washington, or California only because we would have to pick a state in which to become officially incorporated in and be responsible for.
My suggestion would be to avoid seeking official chapter status, and instead form a group like Wikimedia Cascadia as a user group or thematic organization.
Steven
Also not totally sure If I'll be able to make it or not but have generally made my belief known that broad spanding chapters like this are not a good idea overall. In addition to the concerns from Steven below I just think that the requirements and desires of groups in Alaska, Oregon, California etc are too different. Yes I know that there are large countries with single chapters but even there the work is really generally segregated to one area of the country and not the whole place. I would be strongly against a chapter this big but a user group of people interested is <shrugs> fine.
James
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.comwrote:
Tonight in #wikimedia-us at 6 PM Pacific will be the next Wikimedia US meeting. Included on the agenda is discussion of the proposed Wikimedia Cascadia chapter.
Possible geography for the Chapter includes California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska until such time as some of these areas have more localized chapters. Also under discussion is asking WM-Canada to share British Columbia with WM-Cascadia.
Please join the discussion in #wikimedia-us, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia, and/or https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Cascadia.
Anyone who is interested in discussing a potential chapter that would include the Bay area, please join the discussion!
Pine
I may not be able to make it, but wanted to express interest and bring up one point of discussion...
In the past, I have informally asked Chapter Committee members about the possibility of a chapter like this. I was told with no equivocation that chapters which officially spanned multiple municipalities were forbidden, and that we could have a Wikimedia Oregon, Washington, or California only because we would have to pick a state in which to become officially incorporated in and be responsible for.
My suggestion would be to avoid seeking official chapter status, and instead form a group like Wikimedia Cascadia as a user group or thematic organization.
Steven
Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
Hmmm.
Steven, we have Wikimedia Canada, which is larger than Cascadia and includes multiple provinces. If the Chapters Committee approved Wikimedia Canada then I'm not sure how they could cite geography as a reason against a Wikimedia Cascadia with the exception of overlap into another nation's territory.
James, would you also have opposed Wikimedia Canada on the same grounds that you cite here?
Thanks,
Pine
From: jamesofur@gmail.com Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:59:41 -0800 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org CC: deyntestiss@hotmail.com
Also not totally sure If I'll be able to make it or not but have generally made my belief known that broad spanding chapters like this are not a good idea overall. In addition to the concerns from Steven below I just think that the requirements and desires of groups in Alaska, Oregon, California etc are too different. Yes I know that there are large countries with single chapters but even there the work is really generally segregated to one area of the country and not the whole place. I would be strongly against a chapter this big but a user group of people interested is <shrugs> fine.
James
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
Tonight in #wikimedia-us at 6 PM Pacific will be the next Wikimedia US meeting. Included on the agenda is discussion of the proposed Wikimedia Cascadia chapter.
Possible geography for the Chapter includes California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska until such time as some of these areas have more localized chapters. Also under discussion is asking WM-Canada to share British Columbia with WM-Cascadia.
Please join the discussion in #wikimedia-us, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia, and/or https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Cascadia.
Anyone who is interested in discussing a potential chapter that would include the Bay area, please join the discussion!
Pine
I may not be able to make it, but wanted to express interest and bring up one point of discussion... In the past, I have informally asked Chapter Committee members about the possibility of a chapter like this. I was told with no equivocation that chapters which officially spanned multiple municipalities were forbidden, and that we could have a Wikimedia Oregon, Washington, or California only because we would have to pick a state in which to become officially incorporated in and be responsible for.
My suggestion would be to avoid seeking official chapter status, and instead form a group like Wikimedia Cascadia as a user group or thematic organization.
Steven
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
To be honest, at some level, yes If I lived in Vancouver and most of WM-Canada's work and board meetings wtc were centered in Toronto I would have zero interest in joining and would generally object to them claiming to represent me as an editor within their borders. I would also object to them having exclusive rights to use the name in those borders. The same is not necessarily true for say me living in Edinburgh and going to occasionally going to WMUK meetings in London given that it's 1/4 the distance. I'd probably still object to them representing me as an editor especially if I wasn't a member but that's a completely different issue since I don't think chapters should ever be about 'representation' .
I'm a strong advocate for the benefit of subnational chapters especially in larger countries, I think places like WMNYC and WMDC are better overall for the movement and those around them. I think that's especially true in the US where we've already started having sub national chapters. I'd be fine with a CA chapter (or an OR one and possibly if enough from both OR and WA wanted to merge or something like that but I don't think it's that necessary ). I'd be even more fine with a norcal/SF based or socal/LA based chapter if there was a need. That's another important point, we create incorporated orgs like crazy for some reason when they are frequently going to be just fine as a user group especially now that we have user groups being created as examples in the Mediawiki user groups. We now have a process to use the marks and the names etc without incorporating, incorporating costs not insignificant money time and resources every year before it does any good and should not be done until it's necessary.
I know that this is billed as a 'larger chapter that can break down into smaller chapters if people want' but I don't think that's very fair. I think it inhibits the growth of smaller chapters (which I think are better) and it will end up requiring the larger chapter to approve the fork/new chapter which should in no way be the case.
James
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
Hmmm.
Steven, we have Wikimedia Canada, which is larger than Cascadia and includes multiple provinces. If the Chapters Committee approved Wikimedia Canada then I'm not sure how they could cite geography as a reason against a Wikimedia Cascadia with the exception of overlap into another nation's territory.
James, would you also have opposed Wikimedia Canada on the same grounds that you cite here?
Thanks,
Pine
From: jamesofur@gmail.com Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:59:41 -0800 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org CC: deyntestiss@hotmail.com
Also not totally sure If I'll be able to make it or not but have generally made my belief known that broad spanding chapters like this are not a good idea overall. In addition to the concerns from Steven below I just think that the requirements and desires of groups in Alaska, Oregon, California etc are too different. Yes I know that there are large countries with single chapters but even there the work is really generally segregated to one area of the country and not the whole place. I would be strongly against a chapter this big but a user group of people interested is <shrugs> fine.
James
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.comwrote:
Tonight in #wikimedia-us at 6 PM Pacific will be the next Wikimedia US meeting. Included on the agenda is discussion of the proposed Wikimedia Cascadia chapter.
Possible geography for the Chapter includes California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska until such time as some of these areas have more localized chapters. Also under discussion is asking WM-Canada to share British Columbia with WM-Cascadia.
Please join the discussion in #wikimedia-us, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia, and/or https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Cascadia.
Anyone who is interested in discussing a potential chapter that would include the Bay area, please join the discussion!
Pine
I may not be able to make it, but wanted to express interest and bring up one point of discussion...
In the past, I have informally asked Chapter Committee members about the possibility of a chapter like this. I was told with no equivocation that chapters which officially spanned multiple municipalities were forbidden, and that we could have a Wikimedia Oregon, Washington, or California only because we would have to pick a state in which to become officially incorporated in and be responsible for.
My suggestion would be to avoid seeking official chapter status, and instead form a group like Wikimedia Cascadia as a user group or thematic organization.
Steven
Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
-- James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com
Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
On 12/19/12 3:52 PM, James Alexander wrote:
To be honest, at some level, yes If I lived in Vancouver and most of WM-Canada's work and board meetings wtc were centered in Toronto I would have zero interest in joining and would generally object to them claiming to represent me as an editor within their borders. I would also object to them having exclusive rights to use the name in those borders. The same is not necessarily true for say me living in Edinburgh and going to occasionally going to WMUK meetings in London given that it's 1/4 the distance. I'd probably still object to them representing me as an editor especially if I wasn't a member but that's a completely different issue since I don't think chapters should ever be about 'representation' .
I also agree with James (especially on a cultural standpoint - I'm curious if the Francophones or the Scots have different feelings re: Chapter just simply based on cultural differences from English speakers (or the Welsh...etc).
Different cities and states have different needs. I remember when WM DC said they were going to be representing Wikimedians in West Virginia, Maryland, and other regional states, and I heard some pretty negative things from Wikipedians from those states. What's of different value for a Wikimedian from WV might be of different value of a Wikimedian from DC, perhaps.
I'm a strong advocate for the benefit of subnational chapters especially in larger countries, I think places like WMNYC and WMDC are better overall for the movement and those around them. I think that's especially true in the US where we've already started having sub national chapters. I'd be fine with a CA chapter (or an OR one and possibly if enough from both OR and WA wanted to merge or something like that but I don't think it's that necessary ). I'd be even more fine with a norcal/SF based or socal/LA based chapter if there was a need. That's another important point, we create incorporated orgs like crazy for some reason when they are frequently going to be just fine as a user group especially now that we have user groups being created as examples in the Mediawiki user groups. We now have a process to use the marks and the names etc without incorporating, incorporating costs not insignificant money time and resources every year before it does any good and should not be done until it's necessary.
I'm still open to forming a California or Northern California chapter. It's just going to take someone else to spearhead the process. Then, as you suggested, having a larger unofficial organization that perhaps supports a larger national gathering, cross-state events, etc.
I can't make it to the meeting either, due to previous obligations. (I also really am deterred by on-IRC meetings at this point in my life..)
Sarah
My understanding is that Wikimedia Cascada's existence is largely for the purpose of coordinating and supporting activities that will happen within its boarders. It is not formed for the purpose of "representing" all Wikimedians within a geographic area.
That said, I invite you to bring up this issue for discussion on the Meta talk page so that there's opportunity for broader participation. (:
Pine
From: jamesofur@gmail.com Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:52:38 -0800 To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight
To be honest, at some level, yes If I lived in Vancouver and most of WM-Canada's work and board meetings wtc were centered in Toronto I would have zero interest in joining and would generally object to them claiming to represent me as an editor within their borders. I would also object to them having exclusive rights to use the name in those borders. The same is not necessarily true for say me living in Edinburgh and going to occasionally going to WMUK meetings in London given that it's 1/4 the distance. I'd probably still object to them representing me as an editor especially if I wasn't a member but that's a completely different issue since I don't think chapters should ever be about 'representation' .
I'm a strong advocate for the benefit of subnational chapters especially in larger countries, I think places like WMNYC and WMDC are better overall for the movement and those around them. I think that's especially true in the US where we've already started having sub national chapters. I'd be fine with a CA chapter (or an OR one and possibly if enough from both OR and WA wanted to merge or something like that but I don't think it's that necessary ). I'd be even more fine with a norcal/SF based or socal/LA based chapter if there was a need. That's another important point, we create incorporated orgs like crazy for some reason when they are frequently going to be just fine as a user group especially now that we have user groups being created as examples in the Mediawiki user groups. We now have a process to use the marks and the names etc without incorporating, incorporating costs not insignificant money time and resources every year before it does any good and should not be done until it's necessary.
I know that this is billed as a 'larger chapter that can break down into smaller chapters if people want' but I don't think that's very fair. I think it inhibits the growth of smaller chapters (which I think are better) and it will end up requiring the larger chapter to approve the fork/new chapter which should in no way be the case.
James
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
Hmmm.
Steven, we have Wikimedia Canada, which is larger than Cascadia and includes multiple provinces. If the Chapters Committee approved Wikimedia Canada then I'm not sure how they could cite geography as a reason against a Wikimedia Cascadia with the exception of overlap into another nation's territory.
James, would you also have opposed Wikimedia Canada on the same grounds that you cite here?
Thanks,
Pine
From: jamesofur@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:59:41 -0800 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org
CC: deyntestiss@hotmail.com
Also not totally sure If I'll be able to make it or not but have generally made my belief known that broad spanding chapters like this are not a good idea overall. In addition to the concerns from Steven below I just think that the requirements and desires of groups in Alaska, Oregon, California etc are too different. Yes I know that there are large countries with single chapters but even there the work is really generally segregated to one area of the country and not the whole place. I would be strongly against a chapter this big but a user group of people interested is <shrugs> fine.
James
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
Tonight in #wikimedia-us at 6 PM Pacific will be the next Wikimedia US meeting. Included on the agenda is discussion of the proposed Wikimedia Cascadia chapter.
Possible geography for the Chapter includes California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska until such time as some of these areas have more localized chapters. Also under discussion is asking WM-Canada to share British Columbia with WM-Cascadia.
Please join the discussion in #wikimedia-us, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia, and/or https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Cascadia.
Anyone who is interested in discussing a potential chapter that would include the Bay area, please join the discussion!
Pine
I may not be able to make it, but wanted to express interest and bring up one point of discussion... In the past, I have informally asked Chapter Committee members about the possibility of a chapter like this. I was told with no equivocation that chapters which officially spanned multiple municipalities were forbidden, and that we could have a Wikimedia Oregon, Washington, or California only because we would have to pick a state in which to become officially incorporated in and be responsible for.
My suggestion would be to avoid seeking official chapter status, and instead form a group like Wikimedia Cascadia as a user group or thematic organization.
Steven
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-SF mailing list
Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
Pine, yes, this really is a key to success -- I think you've nailed it. If an organization (no matter whether official, unofficial, national, regional, etc.) presents itself as "representing" anybody, there's going to be friction. If it presents (and genuinely thinks of itself) as a "resource" to support regional activity, all should go well.
There is an increasing amount of activity in this area, and I think that's a good thing. I'm not personally motivated to put energy into forming a legal entity, and like Sarah don't have a lot of interest in IRC meetings unless there's a pretty strong commitment to putting everyone's time to good use, but if others want to go down that path that seems fine to me.
Personally, I'm much more interested in putting my energy into actual activities -- edit-a-thons, Wiknics, WLL, etc. If we get to the point where the lack of an organizing entity seems to be hindering such efforts, that might change my perspective, but at the moment it seems there's a lot that can be accomplished without getting lawyers or the IRS involved.
Pete
On Dec 19, 2012, at 4:05 PM, ENWP Pine wrote:
My understanding is that Wikimedia Cascada's existence is largely for the purpose of coordinating and supporting activities that will happen within its boarders. It is not formed for the purpose of "representing" all Wikimedians within a geographic area.
That said, I invite you to bring up this issue for discussion on the Meta talk page so that there's opportunity for broader participation. (:
Pine
From: jamesofur@gmail.com Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:52:38 -0800 To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight
To be honest, at some level, yes If I lived in Vancouver and most of WM-Canada's work and board meetings wtc were centered in Toronto I would have zero interest in joining and would generally object to them claiming to represent me as an editor within their borders. I would also object to them having exclusive rights to use the name in those borders. The same is not necessarily true for say me living in Edinburgh and going to occasionally going to WMUK meetings in London given that it's 1/4 the distance. I'd probably still object to them representing me as an editor especially if I wasn't a member but that's a completely different issue since I don't think chapters should ever be about 'representation' .
I'm a strong advocate for the benefit of subnational chapters especially in larger countries, I think places like WMNYC and WMDC are better overall for the movement and those around them. I think that's especially true in the US where we've already started having sub national chapters. I'd be fine with a CA chapter (or an OR one and possibly if enough from both OR and WA wanted to merge or something like that but I don't think it's that necessary ). I'd be even more fine with a norcal/SF based or socal/LA based chapter if there was a need. That's another important point, we create incorporated orgs like crazy for some reason when they are frequently going to be just fine as a user group especially now that we have user groups being created as examples in the Mediawiki user groups. We now have a process to use the marks and the names etc without incorporating, incorporating costs not insignificant money time and resources every year before it does any good and should not be done until it's necessary.
I know that this is billed as a 'larger chapter that can break down into smaller chapters if people want' but I don't think that's very fair. I think it inhibits the growth of smaller chapters (which I think are better) and it will end up requiring the larger chapter to approve the fork/new chapter which should in no way be the case.
James
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote: Hmmm.
Steven, we have Wikimedia Canada, which is larger than Cascadia and includes multiple provinces. If the Chapters Committee approved Wikimedia Canada then I'm not sure how they could cite geography as a reason against a Wikimedia Cascadia with the exception of overlap into another nation's territory.
James, would you also have opposed Wikimedia Canada on the same grounds that you cite here?
Thanks,
Pine
From: jamesofur@gmail.com Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:59:41 -0800 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight To: wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org CC: deyntestiss@hotmail.com
Also not totally sure If I'll be able to make it or not but have generally made my belief known that broad spanding chapters like this are not a good idea overall. In addition to the concerns from Steven below I just think that the requirements and desires of groups in Alaska, Oregon, California etc are too different. Yes I know that there are large countries with single chapters but even there the work is really generally segregated to one area of the country and not the whole place. I would be strongly against a chapter this big but a user group of people interested is <shrugs> fine.
James
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote: Tonight in #wikimedia-us at 6 PM Pacific will be the next Wikimedia US meeting. Included on the agenda is discussion of the proposed Wikimedia Cascadia chapter.
Possible geography for the Chapter includes California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska until such time as some of these areas have more localized chapters. Also under discussion is asking WM-Canada to share British Columbia with WM-Cascadia.
Please join the discussion in #wikimedia-us, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia, and/orhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Cascadia.
Anyone who is interested in discussing a potential chapter that would include the Bay area, please join the discussion!
Pine
I may not be able to make it, but wanted to express interest and bring up one point of discussion...
In the past, I have informally asked Chapter Committee members about the possibility of a chapter like this. I was told with no equivocation that chapters which officially spanned multiple municipalities were forbidden, and that we could have a Wikimedia Oregon, Washington, or California only because we would have to pick a state in which to become officially incorporated in and be responsible for.
My suggestion would be to avoid seeking official chapter status, and instead form a group like Wikimedia Cascadia as a user group or thematic organization.
Steven
Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
-- James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com
Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
-- James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
Steven, we have Wikimedia Canada, which is larger than Cascadia and includes multiple provinces.
Yes, chapters can be on the national level. Most are. The theory from the Committee goes that you can have a country *or* a lower level form of municipality like state, province, or city. But you can't span multiplie countries, and you can't spread out across a selection of subnational munincipalities.
To be clear: I'm not opposed to the idea of a Cascadia group of Wikimedians. I'm very much favor of it. I'm just warning you about what I've heard about the bureaucratic limitations imposed on official chapters.
Steven
wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org