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: jameso...@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 <deyntest...@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: jameso...@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: deyntest...@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.wall...@gmail.com> > wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, ENWP Pine <deyntest...@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 > jameso...@gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-SF mailing list > Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf > > > > > -- > James Alexander > jameso...@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 petefors...@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-SF mailing list Wikimedia-SF@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-sf
