[Foundation-l] A US Chapter Proposal

[effe iets anders]

2008/5/1 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 op gmail.com>:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Chad <innocentkiller op gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  1) What do you do for areas like NYC? It would be much easier to
>  >  coordinate a chapter for its metropolitan area as opposed to "New
>  >  York State Chapter" or "New Jersey Chapter." For this, I would suggest
>  >  we have a fairly fluid system of allowing chapters to form. While a
>  >  "Virginia" chapter might not be workable, a DC Metropolitan Area one
>  >  would work (2 hours is not unreasonable for me to drive for a meeting,
>  >  at least). This brings us to our second issue:
>
>  My personal opinion on the matter is that a fluid system like this is
>  probably the best. Consider this multipart solution:
>  1) Chapters can form along any boundary (metropolitan, state) so long
>  as they do not overlap with other chapters.
>  2) All chapters must include a clause in their bylaws that they will
>  merge into larger chapters, as "sections" if a larger chapter is
>  formed. So, WMF Philadelphia and WMF Pittsburgh would be forced to
>  merge into WMF PA, if the state chapter was organized and approved.
>  This allows local efforts to get the ball rolling, but also shows
>  preference towards more a more mature model of state-based and
>  eventually nation-based chapters.
>
>  This kind of model is helped by US tax exemption doctrines which, as I
>  learned today from Pharos, states that a sub-organization does not
>  need to incorporate separately as a non-profit if it is a local
>  section of a larger tax-exempt non-profit. For all intents and
>  purposes, US subnational chapters and sections could simply be
>  considered autonomous membership sub-organizations of the WMF itself.
>
>
>  >  2) Representation. If we allow per-state or per-region chapters, how much
>  >  of a say do each of them have in the Foundation? Is each state given a
>  >  voice? For this, I would say that the US gets *one* voice, much as the
>  >  German chapter is given *one* voice, or any of the others.
>
>  If you take the view that subnational chapters are really "sections"
>  of a virtual national chapter that does not yet explicitly exist, this
>  becomes a non-issue. Contrariwise, if we consider that sufferage is
>  granted based on membership, a US national chapter will have the same
>  "voice" that 50 smaller subnational chapters would have. Finding that
>  single "voice" would be a logistical matter to handle separately.
>
>
>  >  The only final issue I've seen is that of funding. Who do you donate to?
>  >  Does an American donate to the WMF or to the local American Chapter?
>
> >  As a proposal, I would say this: money donated
>
>  There are a number of ways to handle this. First, consider that the
>  WMF and WMF USA would hold different fundraisers. All monies collected
>  during the WMF fundraiser would go to the WMF. All donations made to
>  the WMF go to the WMF, including donations brokered by WMF USA on
>  behalf of the WMF. Assuming we understand that WMF USA is a
>  sub-organization to the WMF, it should be possible to move money from
>  one to the other easily, in times of need.
>
>  Consider also that the general level of donations should increase with
>  an increase in on-the-ground volunteers. The WMF is currently looking
>  to fill a single paid position for a person to find and manage
>  donations. Volunteer members of WMF USA could spend hundreds or
>  thousands of man hours organizing fund raisers, soliciting donations
>  from people who otherwise would not have donated, etc. With more of an
>  on-the-ground presence, the WMF should expect an increase in donation
>  revenues, not a decrease because of sharing concerns.
>
>
>  >  Up until now, there has been
>  >  no definitive progress towards a US-based chapter
>
>  Wrong, there has been plenty of progress, as much as is possible with
>  the current roadblocks in place. If it were possible to create a new
>  US-based subnational chapter, I estimate that there would be at least
>  one created already, and up to half a dozen seriously in the works.
>  It's not that nobody is organizing, it's that these groups are being
>  told "Sorry, but we can't accept applications from you yet because
>  nobody knows what's going on in the US". Remove the roadblocks, and
>  progress will become self-evident.
>
>  --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Please don't forget that the structure should support the activities,
not the other way around. We should work with structures that are most
practical imho. That will probably differ from situation to situation.
In the Netherlands it is practical to accept de facto Flanders as well
as coverage area, in the US it might sometimes be practical to split
up to state level, and sometimes to metropolean area level.

Generally imho there is a good measure, that is called enthusiasm. If
people are enthusiastic about a certain shape and set of conditions,
that will likely deliver the best result. Maybe we should not try to
write down every detail, but only the major outline and conditions
which are legally required and which are needed for good
communications. Then we'll see how things go during the process as it
goes along.

BR, Lodewijk