Re: [Wikimedia-SF] WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Oakland Edit-a-thon, January 19

Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Meet up in San...

Michael C. Berch

20 Dec 2012 20 Dec '12

1:41 a.m.

[Original poster:]

...

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.

I have to say, this is the kind of nonsense that has personally caused me to reduce my participation in Wikipedia and gives the organization an unfriendly reputation on the Net and discourages new members. 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. -- Michael C. Berch User:MCB mcb(a)postmodern.com

Show replies by thread

James Alexander

20 Dec 20 Dec

1:49 a.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch <mcb(a)postmodern.com>wrote;wrote:

...

There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities" is an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people. -- Michael C. Berch User:MCB mcb(a)postmodern.com

Samuel Klein

1:57 a.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

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. SJ On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Michael C. Berch <mcb(a)postmodern.com>wrote;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

Pete Forsyth

1:58 a.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

I think some context is in order here. I'm sure others will correct me if I err, but Michael, here's my understanding: * Chapters historically came into existence to (1) process donations in local currency and (2) deal with local legal issues * The difficulty of forming a chapter that doesn't conform to legal borders has caused tension in recent years * The WMF Board and many in the community are aware and concerned about this * The general solution is not so much to adapt the Chapter model to fit other cases, as to establish that other cases are fine *without* carrying the name "chapter". The Wikimedia movement has a new approach to funds dissemination; being a chapter is not the only way to get grants or put the name "Wikipedia" (or "Wikimedia" etc.) to good use. In other words, just because the CHAPTERS committee is lukewarm to an idea like this *as a Chapter*, doesn't mean it's a non-starter or undesirable. -Pete On Dec 19, 2012, at 4:49 PM, James Alexander wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch <mcb(a)postmodern.com> wrote: There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities" is an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people. -- Michael C. Berch User:MCB mcb(a)postmodern.com There most certainly are legal and financial stakes. An incorporated organization costs a not insignificant amount of resources and cash to maintain even before they do anything at all. This is especially true when you are spanning multiple diverse jurisdictions (such as states or countries) and have to know at least some of the laws of each. I don't think towns/cities are a major problem. I'm sure it will be an added wrinkle given that the jurisdiction overlaps the foundations offices itself. I'm not saying chapters shouldn't be allowed, just like I said above, I just don't like the idea of such large ones. I don't think it's that beneficial. James -- James Alexander jamesofur(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Pete Forsyth peteforsyth(a)gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile

Samuel Klein

2:09 a.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

* Chapters historically came into existence to (1) process donations in local currency and (2) deal with local legal issues

I would say it is more (3) provide an organization that could handle local partnerships and communication: with content and promotion and other targeted projects. The sort of thing that the WMF explicitly leaves to other entities, by virtue of not accepting targeted donations.

...

* The difficulty of forming a chapter that doesn't conform to legal borders has caused tension in recent years

This was feared but has not been true in practice. (It was an issue of forming an incorporated entity, period, not specific to a chapter.)

...

* The WMF Board and many in the community are aware and concerned about this

Not sure... concerned about what here? The explicit recognition of other entities was to avoid forcing groups into a narrow mould in order to be recognized as a stable part of the movement. It wasn't in response to issues with geographic groups that weren't national; it was in to recognize the majority of groups that are not geographic at all.

...

* The general solution is not so much to adapt the Chapter model to fit other cases, as to establish that other cases are fine *without* carrying the name "chapter".

...

The Wikimedia movement has a new approach to funds dissemination; being a > chapter is not the only way to get grants or put the name "Wikipedia" (or > "Wikimedia" etc.) to good use.

...

Yes. In other words, just because the CHAPTERS committee

...

There is no longer a chapters committee; it is now the Affiliations Committee :) And please don't judge what they /might/ think; just ask them. SJ

Pete Forsyth

2:19 a.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

SJ, thanks for your much better-informed post, ours crossed in the mail, I'd have left it to you if I knew that was coming! To all, I would suggest you ignore my post in deference to his. I do want to say, I think you've misunderstood me in a couple places (probably my fault for not being clear) -- most significantly, it wasn't my intent to judge anyone, or or make assumptions about what they say; overall, I was really just trying to make the same point you did (that chapters are not the only way to organize), only I did it much less eloquently. Again though, to all -- the best thing would probably be to ignore my post, as the one SJ wrote about the same time covers the issue much better. Pete On Dec 19, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote: * Chapters historically came into existence to (1) process donations in local currency and (2) deal with local legal issues I would say it is more (3) provide an organization that could handle local partnerships and communication: with content and promotion and other targeted projects. The sort of thing that the WMF explicitly leaves to other entities, by virtue of not accepting targeted donations. * The difficulty of forming a chapter that doesn't conform to legal borders has caused tension in recent years This was feared but has not been true in practice. (It was an issue of forming an incorporated entity, period, not specific to a chapter.) * The WMF Board and many in the community are aware and concerned about this Not sure... concerned about what here? The explicit recognition of other entities was to avoid forcing groups into a narrow mould in order to be recognized as a stable part of the movement. It wasn't in response to issues with geographic groups that weren't national; it was in to recognize the majority of groups that are not geographic at all. * The general solution is not so much to adapt the Chapter model to fit other cases, as to establish that other cases are fine *without* carrying the name "chapter". The Wikimedia movement has a new approach to funds dissemination; being a chapter is not the only way to get grants or put the name "Wikipedia" (or "Wikimedia" etc.) to good use. Yes. In other words, just because the CHAPTERS committee There is no longer a chapters committee; it is now the Affiliations Committee :) And please don't judge what they /might/ think; just ask them. SJ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Pete Forsyth peteforsyth(a)gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile

phoebe ayers

2:20 a.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

* The general solution is not so much to adapt the Chapter model to fit other cases, as to establish that other cases are fine *without* carrying the name "chapter". The Wikimedia movement has a new approach to funds dissemination; being a chapter is not the only way to get grants or put the name "Wikipedia" (or "Wikimedia" etc.) to good use.

Specifically: Wikimedia is recognizing 'new models of affiliation', which means that various kinds of groups, including those organized around a common interest that isn't geographically bounded (librarians!) or those which span some kind of non-legal geography (Cascadia). I can also +1 what SJ just said. I would love to see the WM-US group explore really innovative ideas about what such a geographically broad organization might do and what themes it might encompass; how it might help local meetup groups and local Wikimedians, and what activities a group might take on. Like Pete, I personally tend to gravitate more towards planning events and outreach than planning new organizations. I doubt we're alone in this; however, despite that it's been historically difficult to keep meetup groups going in the proposed Cascadia geography, despite high numbers of wiki-interested people in many areas (Seattle, Portland, BC, SF all have strong collaborative tech communities). So I wonder how a new organization might work with or help that. Lastly, since this is the San Francisco area list and we haven't seen a whole lot of local activities recently: I want to remind everyone that organizing a meetup or other activity is as simple as posting a notice here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/San_Francisco and then letting us all know about it on the list! Feel free to use the talk page or the list to discuss logistics and ideas, too. I would personally love to see more activities, or just social get-togethers, and more stuff in our greater region (the South Bay, Sacramento!) would be cool too. There are a lot of possibilities that *don't* require a formal organization to pull off, and a lot of people in this group (we have a couple hundred subscribers) who are game to do something! cheers, Phoebe

Philippe Beaudette

2:22 a.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

I think Pete speaks with some wisdom here: a question that I would put to the group... "What is the need, seeking to be filled, that requires the incorporation of a new group, in this instance?" Once you've got a good answer to that question, then you're pointed in the right direction. Until that question and an answer can be articulated (and I haven't heard one yet), it's a solution looking for a problem. pb (Personal capacity, yada yada yada) ___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 philippe(a)wikimedia.org On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

* Chapters historically came into existence to (1) process donations in local currency and (2) deal with local legal issues

* The difficulty of forming a chapter that doesn't conform to legal borders has caused tension in recent years

This was feared but has not been true in practice. (It was an issue of forming an incorporated entity, period, not specific to a chapter.)

* The WMF Board and many in the community are aware and concerned about this

* The general solution is not so much to adapt the Chapter model to fit other cases, as to establish that other cases are fine *without* carrying the name "chapter".

The Wikimedia movement has a new approach to funds dissemination; being a > chapter is not the only way to get grants or put the name "Wikipedia" (or > "Wikimedia" etc.) to good use.

Yes. In other words, just because the CHAPTERS committee

There is no longer a chapters committee; it is now the Affiliations Committee :) And please don't judge what they /might/ think; just ask them. SJ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf Pete Forsyth peteforsyth(a)gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

Pete Forsyth

3:14 a.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

On Dec 19, 2012, at 5:20 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:

...

difficult to keep meetup groups going in the proposed Cascadia geography

Say now, what? :) Seems to me we had *two* great events last week, Oakland Wiki just announced weekly edit-a-thons at the library, various other things in the works. Portland had a real successful Wiki Loves Libraries event a month or two back, we've had various fun wiknics, Wiki Loves Monuments…maybe it's the lack of the sense of a cohesive "group" you're noting? Could be, but I'm not sure that's a necessary ingredient to moving things forward. Actually, I think a world in which lots of people and groups are supporting Wikipedia in small/quasi-connected ways is pretty exciting! Not better or worse than a more structured approach, but pretty enjoyable and productive. Pete

Michael C. Berch

22 Dec 22 Dec

4:31 a.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

On Dec 19, 2012, at 6:49 PM, James Alexander wrote:

...

I can't speak to jurisdictions outside the U.S., but I have a fair amount of experience and expertise with respect to both business and nonprofit entities in the U.S. I have formed and advised a number of both as an attorney, and I can assure you that there are no problems in operating a 501(c)(3) organization (or similar) that operates in multiple or overlapping states, counties, or municipalities. It is also not particularly necessary that a "chapter" or "affiliate" of a national or global nonprofit (like Wikimedia Foundation) be, itself, an incorporated entity. (The Board of Directors may specify that as a requirement, but it is not a legal one.) Inexperienced organizations often "over-organize" when it comes to local chapters and affiliates, drawing precise geographical jurisdictional lines or requiring that the affiliates represent some particular level of subnational entities. There are a number of reasons why this happens, including intra-organizational politics and misunderstanding of legal issues. It is almost never a good idea, and as we see, generates unneeded conflicts. -- Michael C. Berch User:MCB mcb(a)postmodern.com

Samuel Klein

7:25 a.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

When you have chapters and affiliates that aren't incorporated, how do you handle agreements or grants between such entities? SJ. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Michael C. Berch <mcb(a)postmodern.com>wrote;wrote:

...

On Dec 19, 2012, at 6:49 PM, James Alexander wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch <mcb(a)postmodern.com>wrote;wrote:

There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities" is an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people. -- Michael C. Berch User:MCB mcb(a)postmodern.com

There most certainly are legal and financial stakes. An incorporated organization costs a not insignificant amount of resources and cash to maintain even before they do anything at all. This is especially true when you are spanning multiple diverse jurisdictions (such as states or countries) and have to know at least some of the laws of each. I don't think towns/cities are a major problem. I'm sure it will be an added wrinkle given that the jurisdiction overlaps the foundations offices itself. I can't speak to jurisdictions outside the U.S., but I have a fair amount of experience and expertise with respect to both business and nonprofit entities in the U.S. I have formed and advised a number of both as an attorney, and I can assure you that there are no problems in operating a 501(c)(3) organization (or similar) that operates in multiple or overlapping states, counties, or municipalities. It is also not particularly necessary that a "chapter" or "affiliate" of a national or global nonprofit (like Wikimedia Foundation) be, itself, an incorporated entity. (The Board of Directors may specify that as a requirement, but it is not a legal one.) Inexperienced organizations often "over-organize" when it comes to local chapters and affiliates, drawing precise geographical jurisdictional lines or requiring that the affiliates represent some particular level of subnational entities. There are a number of reasons why this happens, including intra-organizational politics and misunderstanding of legal issues. It is almost never a good idea, and as we see, generates unneeded conflicts. -- Michael C. Berch User:MCB mcb(a)postmodern.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

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

James Alexander

8:04 a.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

You can very much have an entity (and even file tax returns or request tax-exempt status at a federal or state level) without incorporation and can have legally binding agreements despite the lack of incorporation. It does sometimes open users up to a bit more personal liability but can be a very good option for people who are just getting together to do something good :). The uniform definition I generally see is that an "unincorporated nonprofit association as an unincorporated organization consisting of three or more members joined by mutual consent for a common, nonprofit purpose" James On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Dec 19, 2012, at 6:49 PM, James Alexander wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch <mcb(a)postmodern.com>wrote;wrote:

There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities" is an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people. -- Michael C. Berch User:MCB mcb(a)postmodern.com

-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

-- James Alexander jamesofur(a)gmail.com

Samuel Klein

6:40 p.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

Yes, it seems that "incorporate" could usefully be replaced with "form a registered association" in a lot of wikimedia docs / recommendations. On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 2:04 AM, James Alexander <jamesofur(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

On Dec 19, 2012, at 6:49 PM, James Alexander wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Michael C. Berch <mcb(a)postmodern.com>wrote;wrote:

There are no legal or financial stakes, the issue of "municipalities" is an irrelevant triviality, and it just serves to annoy people. -- Michael C. Berch User:MCB mcb(a)postmodern.com

-- James Alexander jamesofur(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf

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

Michael C. Berch

9:26 p.m.

New subject: WM Cascadia chapter discussion tonight

The same way as in any large organization, commercial or nonprofit. There is no reason they have to have any independent legal existence, and in many organizations, they don't. They can just be informal subgroupings, organized for convenience (geographical, topical, or otherwise) of the organization as a whole, with or without whatever budgetary authority is granted by the organization's management. Agreements about projects and funding could be mediated through the parent organization (through the Board, or whatever committee handles affiliate matters), or simply handled informally. This in addition to what James Alexander mentioned about unincorporated associations. -- Michael C. Berch User:MCB mcb(a)postmodern.com On Dec 22, 2012, at 12:25 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:

...

4136

days inactive

4138

days old

wikimedia-sf@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

13 comments

6 participants

tags (0)

participants (6)

James Alexander
Michael C. Berch
Pete Forsyth
Philippe Beaudette
phoebe ayers
Samuel Klein