Mailing List Archive

A US Chapter Proposal
Community,

I was reading some of the discussion surrounding chapters, particularly
a chapter residing in the United States. As people have mentioned before
there are some issues to address in founding such a chapter, but I
believe I've come up with a proposal that helps deal with such issues. I
look forward to feedback.

The main issue with a US chapter is the size of the United States. While
in Europe, it is common for people to travel by rail and oftentimes see
other parts of the country, the US lacks such a well-designed public
transportation system. Driving from Florida to New York is quite a trip,
not even thinking about the trip across country. Trains in the US are
overpriced and slow; not to mention their slowly dying popularity as
a transportation mechanism. Flying is cost-prohibitive to the majority
of Americans. This presents us with a curious issue: How to coordinate
a nationwide chapter when meeting people from other parts of the
country is so difficult? The suggest has come up for state chapters, but
this presents two issues in and of themselves.

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:

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. While this
creates a logistical issue (how do many chapters present 1 voice?),
I believe it will create a system in which US Wikimedians can have
chapters to organize, without fear of over-representation in WMF issues.

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?
In Germany, this isn't as much of an issue (as, if I understand this right,
non-profit money raised in Germany must be used *in* Germany, so
WM DE cannot send money to the US WMF. Someone correct me if
I'm terribly wrong here). As a proposal, I would say this: money donated
to the Foundation is clearly earmarked for them as such. It goes to servers,
salaries, etc., the same as it always has. WM US would need to simply
make it known and understood that money donated to them would be
for the sole purpose of facilitating WM US activities, and not to the
Foundation. This would help keep the issue of "where is my donation
going" from being so muddled.

If in fact we are going to have Chapter-based seats and they are
considered community seats, we need to insure that our community
remains enfranchised and the first step to that is facilitating chapters
in the countries that do not have them. Up until now, there has been
no definitive progress towards a US-based chapter, but I think I've come
up with a decent compromise we can work with. I look forward to other
ideas.

Always,
Chad

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A US Chapter Proposal [ In reply to ]
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Chad <innocentkiller@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A US Chapter Proposal [ In reply to ]
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>

I can definitely attest to this. :-) Just a look at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters> shows two in
planning and a few ideas (I'm sure there are more pages on Meta-Wiki
about this too).

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A US Chapter Proposal [ In reply to ]
2008/5/1 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Chad <innocentkiller@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@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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l