Talk:Cascadia Wikimedians/Archive 2

WikiConference USA Cascadia Meetup

WikiConference USA attendees might be interested in the planned Cascadia Meetup. This is an opportunity to meet fellow enthusiasts, discuss activities in the Cascadia/Pacific Northwest region, and consider future plans. This will be casual and is not a conference submission or formal meeting. Please sign up if you are interested! --Another Believer (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Mailing list, part 2

A mailing list for the Wikimedia Cascadia group has been confirmed and created! Please sign up, introduce yourself, and be sure to share about future Wikipedia activities in the region. Thanks! --Another Believer (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Move to Cascadia Wikimedians?

You will need to change the name in order to be approved as a Wikimedia User Group. (Unfortunately, the "Wikimedia X" name, according to current Affiliations Committee policy, can only go to full Chapters.) The "Wikimedia New England" group decided to rename itself to New England Wikimedians to satisfy this requirement, and perhaps a name of this kind can work for your region too.--Pharos (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. --Another Believer (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT

		Wikimedia LGBT+
		Wikimedia LGBT+ is a proposed thematic organization that seeks to promote the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT+ communities. Proposed activities include outreach at LGBT events, Wikimania and other Wikimedia events, an international campaign called Wiki Loves Pride, and work on safe space policies, among other collaborations and interwiki projects. Active Wikimedians are welcome to join this cause! Please consider adding your name as a participant/supporter. Current tasks include translating pages, building a strong framework here at Meta, and achieving user group status (with the eventual goal of becoming a thematic organization). Your feedback is welcome on the discussion page.

--Another Believer (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Are any Seattle residents interested in taking pictures of LGBT-related culture and history throughout the month of June as part of Wiki Loves Pride 2014? No one has suggested a date and location for an edit-a-thon yet, but it would be nice to at least have some images uploaded from the Seattle Pride event, or LGBT establishments in Capitol Hill and other parts of the city. See here for an example of a photography campaign page for Portland, Oregon. If interested, let me know. I'd be happy to help create a gallery page like the one for Portland. A photography campaign is also being held in Vancouver, BC--it would be great to have all three major Cascadia cities represented! --Another Believer (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone in Seattle interesting in hosting a Wiki Loves Pride event? See here. --Another Believer (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Our name

With discussion underway about user group status, one of the issues brought up at the Cascadia meeting this afternoon at WikiConference USA was that of our name. I was delegated the responsibility of starting a quasi-request for comment/poll. Does anyone have any thoughts? I personally prefer Pacific Northwest Wikimedians or something to that effect. The tenor of the room for editors from the Pacific Northwest leaned toward the former, rather than our current one. Let's weigh reasons and talk about it! Blurpeace 04:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to talk with AffCom about the requirement that we not name ourselves "Wikimedia X" because those names are reserved for chapters. After an organization is established, name changes can be time consuming, can cause issues with donors, require legal changes, and in my opinion are best to avoid in most circumstances. So I would like us to talk with AffCom about that.

Second, I would be interested in knowing what the reasons were that people preferred Pacific Northwest? This is a good discussion to have. Thanks, --Pine^✉ 06:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Some issues with "Cascadia":

• the word is associated with an independence movement, which may require group members to always have to answer the question, "No, we are not associated with the independence movement", or similar
• the word, to some, can have a liberal or even radical connotation
• many people around the world may not know the location of the Cascadia region
• Cascadia blurs the line between thematic/cultural and geographic jurisdiction (some people may like this, but some do not)

Some issues with "Pacific Northwest":

• longer phrase
• if Canadians in British Columbia choose to participate, do they identify with the term "Pacific Northwest", or is this a US-centric term?

These are some of the questions that were raised during our discussion at WikiConference USA. There did seem to be a preference among locals for Pacific Northwest, but I think it was decided that the discussion should continue online to allow others to participate. Also, deciding on a name is part of the user group application process, so we don't need to have a decision made before we submit a request. --Another Believer (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• About the independence movement - I had a talk with Dougweller about how the English Wikipedia page emphasizes an independence movement, and I think we had consensus that the existing literature on Cascadia talks about Cascadia as a bioregion and a culture and that it is a fringe view to present it as an independence movement despite that being the Wikipedia articles focus. I told him weeks ago that I would trim the unreliable sources from that Wikipedia article and try to pull in better sources, but still have not done that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The independence movement is not the first thing that comes to mind to me, but it may for some. I think of culture and the bioregion. I am just noting what emerged in our discussion. --Another Believer (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• As someone who lives in BC, I (obviously enough) don't identify with "Pacific Northwest." I would have thought that the point of using the term "Cascadia" would be to enable cross-border synergies. --Jbmurray (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• I tend to support Wikimedia Cascadia or Cascadia Wikimedians for reasons mentioned above

• It is shorter and sounds better
• British Columbians may find it easier to identify with Cascadia.
• "Pacific Northwest" may be just as unhelpful a term to non-American audiences as "Cascadia" is
• It doesn't automatically imply a political viewpoint, and answering questions about it gives us a chance to explain who we are.
• Other organizations in our area use the term Cascadia for non-political purposes already such as:

• Canada:

• Cascadia Systems Group
• Cascadia Instrumentation

• Washington and Oregon:

• Cascadia Consulting
• Cascadia Pacific Group
• Cascadia Chronicle
• Cascadia Geoservices

I am open to other views, but given the balance of points above I prefer Cascadia. --Pine^✉ 05:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have a strong preference for the term Cascadia. Most importantly, it is the only term I know that is frequently used by people in BC, Washington, and Oregon to describe a shared regional identity. The fact that a tiny number of people want that region to be an independent state is overstated and something that most people who identify as Cascadian do not know. For example, Cascadia Community College is not a secessionist orgaization. The Cascadia Cup is an extremely big deal among the fans of Major League Soccer. I also think that the name is attractive and concise. It refers to the Cascades: perhaps our region's countries most beautiful natural resources. —mako๛ 23:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• I vote for Cascadia Mcnabber091 (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Portland/Oregon/WikiProject Oregon notifications

Greetings! I have compiled a list of people who have attended meetups in Oregon, are members of WikiProject Oregon, or have a general interest in improving Oregon-related content at Wikipedia. The list, located at en:Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Participants, will be used to distribute talk page messages and meetup invitations that may be of interest to these individuals. If you are interested in receiving talk page messages about WikiProject Oregon or meetups, feel free to add your name to the list. Thanks! --Another Believer (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I should say that, ideally, there would be separate lists for WikiProject Oregon updates and meetup invitations in Oregon, as people might be interested in one but not the other For now, the list serves the general purpose of using the mass message tool to distribute WikiProject Oregon or meetup notifications to a large number of people very easily. This is an opt-out list, meaning I have added names and people have the right to remove their name from the list. If people would prefer that the page be moved to a more suitable title, I am open to suggestions. It would be really great to have a similar list for WikiProject Washington/WikiProject Seattle/meetups in Washington State. That way, if we choose to distribute Wikimedia Cascadia updates, we have two pretty solid lists ready to go! --Another Believer (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I like this idea. I'll try to remember to include this in the discussion at the next Seattle meetup. --Pine^✉ 06:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Great! I must say, it was so nice to be able to send a message to 450 people with the click of a button! :) --Another Believer (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Another Believer I had a problem today with the infamous Seattle traffic that resulted in me being late to the meetup so there wasn't an opportunity to discuss this. We'll need to discuss at Wicnik or elsewhere. --Pine^✉ 07:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sign on to be a Founding Member of Cascadia Wikimedians

At WikiConference USA we have held a session, "Cascadia Meetup" discussing the founding of a Cascadia Wikimedians Usergroup. We are looking for founding members/leadership for a Wikipedia Usergroup and request that if you would like to be included as a founding member of the Usergroup, you please sign your Username below. We will send an email to the Affiliations Committee when we have 3 or more signatures here and the founding members have agreed that we are ready to go forward with this proposal to the Affiliations Committee.

• OR drohowa (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• --Pine^✉ 21:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• --Another Believer (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC) (There are some decisions to be made and some discussions to be had, but I look forward to going through the process!)
• Looking forward to working with you guys on making this a reality! Blurpeace 04:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• --Jbmurray (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• mako๛ 22:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Yes! -- Brianhe (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Tjlynnjr User:OR drohowa suggested I sign up today, so here I am. Hope I'm not too late. 03:56 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe sufficient time has been given to those who may wish to sign on as a founding member, but were not present at WikiConference USA. Are we ready to send an email to AffCom as the next step toward user group status? --Another Believer (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I say that we are ready to submit an email to AffCom! OR drohowa (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think enough time has passed. I sent an email to the Cascadia mailing list to see if Pine wants to get the ball rolling. --Another Believer (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: An email has been sent, and we are awaiting communication from AffCom. In the meantime, I imagine it would be beneficial to start reviewing Wikimedia User Group Agreement. --Another Believer (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I've been looking at that. I've also been looking into what it takes to incorporate as a nonprofit in Washington to get liability protection, assuming that we're incorporating in Washington. I've also been working a little on background information related to fundraising. --Pine^✉ 08:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your effort on this, Pine. I would be happy to help as a point person up in BC, so long as someone else were doing it with me. --Jbmurray (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jbmurray, I will add your name to the contacts list. Please take a look at Talk:Cascadia_Wikimedians#Washington + Oregon or Washington + Oregon + British Columbia? --Pine^✉ 07:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Echoing jbmurray in thanking you all for getting things moving on this. I'd be happy to be a second BC representative. The Interior (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks The Interior, feel free to add yourself as a contact listed in the Affcom discussion. --Pine^✉ 05:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Meetups in Seattle, Early July

Hi All! I'm a native Washingtonian (from Mount Vernon) that currently does Wiki stuff in New York and with Wikimedia NYC. I will be in Seattle for the July Wikinic and am looking forward to meeting some Seattle Wikipedians. I hope to talk to you about the proposed Wikimedia Cascadia Usergroup! If you want to meetup in Seattle at the Wiknic or apart from it for coffee to talk about Wikimedia Cascadia sometime July 1st-July 8th, message me! OR drohowa (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi OR drohowa, I look forward to seeing you at Wicnik. --Pine^✉ 05:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Social media

If our request for user group status is successful, perhaps we should consider setting up social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter). This would allow us to communicate with one another, provide updates, promote events and campaigns, create events as RSVP lists, etc. Many other chapters and user groups do this as well. Personally, I find the mailing lists frustrating, though I recognize they serve a purpose. Social media does as well. --Another Believer (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

In addition to the two maps in the "Boundaries" section above, this one might come in handy during this discussion. The map differentiates between political boundaries associated with the independence movement and the border of the bioregion.

Satellite image of the region

I think we need to be clear that although the bioregion of Cascadia includes British Columbia, this chapter will not because British Columbia is claimed by Wikimedia Canada unless they feel like giving it to us. Also, we are likely including all of Idaho and Montana, and we may consider including Alaska, all of which I'm not sure would be included in the bioregional model of Cascadia. I think it might be more accurate to say that we are "Wikimedia Northwest US" rather than "Wikimedia Cascadia" although I like the name "Cascadia" better. --Pine^✉ 18:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. This is exactly the kind of feedback we need. I have thought of this as well... Cascadia vs. Pacific Northwest vs. Northwest US. I like the name Cascadia but I am not sure it would feel inclusive to people in Idaho and Montana. Also, British Columbia is up in the air, and I am uncertain about Northern California as well. Of course, there are not official chapters in California, Idaho or Montana, so "jurisdiction" is less of an issue to me than BC, which IS within Wikimedia Canada. Actually, I had not given much thought to Alaska. This kind of goes back to that original argument... strict borders vs. opt-in. People can choose to participate in this chapter regardless of where they live, AND they have every right to participate in multiple chapters. I just think we should be realistic and assume that most of our activity will take place in Seattle and Portland (and possibly Vancouver and/or San Francisco if they are considered chapter territory). --Another Believer (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem in having overlapping jurisdictions because participation will always be opt-in. The primary purpose of this chapter is to support the metropolitan centers in the region, which are Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver. The reason why these cities are the focus is because they are close to each other and because those are the most likely places for Wikipedians to be able to find and organize themselves. Other Wikipedians in the region could join Cascadia if they have some need to join and organization and this group seems relevant to them, but if they see a better option then they should take that option.

I see no problem with overlapping jurisdiction. Wikimedia Canada loses nothing by having extra support for one area of its Wikipedians. Just recently I talked with en:user:OhanaUnited, the coordinator for the education program in Canada, and he said it would be great to have nearby support for Vancouver because he lives 2000 miles away in Toronto. We can talk more about this with other Canadian people, but I cannot immediately imagine why anyone would want the three cities to not collaborate if they understood the geographical proximity to each other and their distance from every other city.

The ideal situation for chapters is that whenever there are enough Wikipedians to form their own organization then they should. Having a Wikimedia Cascadia does not preclude any organization in any other place.

Cascadia is a large region and if there is enough interest in having a Wikimedia chapter here then we could help make it. Canada is huge - their chapter needs more organizational support and people in Cascadia could join to give that to British Columbia. If British Columbia were it own country, then at 944,735 km2 by area it would be the 30th biggest country in the world. If Cascadia were its own country, then at 1,384,588 km2 it would be the 20th biggest. See en:List of countries and dependencies by area. No one is hurt and everyone benefits by having more Wikipedians organize in this region. There is no reason to introduce politics to discourage collaboration among nearby places. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Including British Columbia in WM Cascadia is OK with me if that is OK with our friends in the existing Canadian chapter. Overlap seems like a good way to do this, I agree that we're not likely to be in direct competition. Can you ask for a formal resolution from the Chapter to confirm that this arrangement is acceptable to them? We want to be good neighbors (: --Pine^✉ 20:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I intend to do this, but first I want to sort out who is interested in this project at all. The request really should come from people in Vancouver, and I more represent Seattle. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So, should we submit a request for comments by posting a note over at Wikimedia Canada? WikiProject Canada and WikiProject Vancouver? --Another Believer (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To request feedback from Wikimedia Canada, perhaps we could post the following notification at the talk page for the chapter and/or on individual members' talk pages? Also, Wikimedia Canada has a separate website; does anyone have a login to post the notification there as well?

Feel free to make changes or suggestions. I would like for the invitation to be general enough that people feel they can comment in any of the sections at the talk page, or even start their own. If we get to a point of legalities, bylaws, organizations, etc., it would be helpful to have support and assistance from our already established neighbor chapter! --Another Believer (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Washington + Oregon or Washington + Oregon + British Columbia?

At least until we obtain feedback from Wikimedia Canada, perhaps we should focus our efforts on Washington and Oregon. Whether or not Cascadia 'officially' covers BC or California, Wikipedians from both regions would be more than welcome to participate. Also, in terms of legal matters, I imagine forming an international organization would be much more difficult than establishing one that operates solely within the US. --Another Believer (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

@Jbmurray:, @Another Believer: and others, has there been any discussion among British Columbia's Wikimedians about how they feel about being associated with Wikimedia Cascadia, Wikimedia Canada, or both? Has Wikimedia Canada been consulted?

Also, are any British Columbia Wikimedians familiar with how a US-based nonprofit would go about registering to work in British Columbia and obtaining any necessary permits or insurance? --Pine^✉ 07:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. 1) We talked informally to User:Jmh649 at the Wiki Conference in NYC: he's one of the founders of the Canadian chapter, but seemed to have no problem with a Cascadia group, and has even signed up to support it (below). Beyond that, to my knowledge there's been no official contact. My suspicion is that BC-based Wikipedians would be generally in favor. 2) No idea on the bureaucracy of the whole thing. --Jbmurray (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Canadian chapter is not functioning well. While I was involved with founding it I am no longer involved. Part of the issue is geography based. There are two large population bases, one in the east and one in the west. In person meeting were way too expensive.

Founding an international NGO is not that hard, Wiki Project Med is one. With respect to the Wikimedia politics I do not know. With respect to contacting those still involved with Wikimedia Canada might be good to send a email to them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. Jbmurray can you reach out to Wikimedia Canada? It would be good to have a statement from them about their willingness to accomodate British Columbia residents who want to be members of both Wikimedia Canada and Wikimedia Cascadia, or just Wikimedia Cascadia. We in Oregon and Washington are not trying to conduct a "land grab" out from Canada, and I think we would try to find a way to share the territory in British Columbia if they would accept that. If forming an international NGO is as straightforward as Doc James says then I think we would try to operate in British Columbia if the Wikimedians there and Wikimedia Canada accepted this idea. --Pine^✉ 05:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

However the understanding is that we are inviting the most reasonable part of the United States to join us Canadians :-) We are the biggest geographical mass. Hopefully Wikimedia USA does not mind us taking the more liberal parts of their country. We could even share some of our ideas about universal health care... and would consider letting California join. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hah. However, I must inform our Canadian friends that Washington and Oregon are not uniformly liberal, and even California recently had a Republican governor. But we will leave our politics at home when we wear our Wikimedia Cascadia hats. ;) --Pine^✉ 07:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

California

I mean no offense, and someone can revert my edits, but I removed all appearances of California from the main page (apart from one in the line about WikiProject Cannabis). California has not been part of this conversation lately, so I am being bold and attempting to define the boundaries of this user group to some degree. Thoughts? --Another Believer (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that is correct. I have heard that the San Francisco Wikimedians have a user group but I am not sure that they have ever officially had it recognized by AffCom. I think WMF itself tends to host events in San Francisco. --Pine^✉ 05:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposed usergroup for the Bay Area is at Wiki BUG. It has seen only sporadic activity (though there have been a number of community events in the area), and has not applied to AffCom yet.--Pharos (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin help?

Resolved.

Is there an admin who could move the page Wikimedia Cascadia/Events to Cascadia Wikimedians/Events (over the redirect), please?

The page "Wikimedia Cascadia/Events" existed before, but was moved to Cascadia Wikimedians/Events for user group naming consistency. Then, I moved it to Cascadia Wikimedians/Events by type when I decided it might be a good idea to have a single chronological list of events in the Cascadia region with a separate list of events sorts by type (GLAM, Wiki Loves Libraries, etc.) I would now like to move the newly-created page "Wikimedia Cascadia/Events" the appropriately-titled "Cascadia Wikimedians/Events". Any help would be appreciated! --Another Believer (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Done!--Pharos (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Another Believer (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Events

As mentioned above, I moved the former Events page to Cascadia Wikimedians/Events by type. This page contains a (not entirely complete) list of events, sorted by campaign type. However, I thought it would also be helpful to have a separate list of events in chronological order, regardless of campaign. See Cascadia Wikimedians/Events. I ask my fellow Cascadians to please take a look and see if there any other events that should be added. Thanks! --Another Believer (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Er, I think I need to study Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle/archive a bit more! --Another Believer (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Project leaflets

I am already managing a leaflet project for another group, but would someone else be interested in creating project leaflets for Cascadia? Submitting a request should not take long, but I am a bit stretched thin at the moment. They could come in handy at local events. --Another Believer (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion with the Affiliations Committee

Illustration of possible chapter relationships by Pharos of Wikimedia New York City

Discussion with AffCom below. The answers I have provided are just my personal opinion. We need to develop consensus. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pine,

Thanks for contacting Affiliations Committee about Cascadia Wikimedians User Group. We appreciate your interest to be affiliated to the Wikimedia Foundation. And it's a nice approach that you have chosen the User Group Model for a starter.

Kirill Lokshin (Cced here) and I are going to be your Affiliations Committee liaison to help you to reach your goal. So please do not hesitate to contact any or both of us in need.

First of all thank you for having an informative Meta page (it actually took a while for me to read them). That's why I assume you have already read and maintained the guidance on step-by-step user group creation guide [1]. So I will not forward you there in the first place for now. However, I have some general questions I would like to have an answer to help us understand some things better.

1. Who are the key people behind this entity? Who are the persons we should contact with in case we have queries? A "Contact person" section on your Meta page will help.

• At this point, probably user:Another Believer Oregon, user:Pine in Washington, and user:Jbmurray in British Columbia. If someone else wants to sign up as a contact I hope they will mention it here. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to be a contact person. --Another Believer (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

2. What are the future plan after you get affiliated or as a group. I think a section on this would help to have a clear image on this.

• Please see question 9 below. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from them I would liked to ask some regular questions which I might see or guess from your Meta page, but asking here for the record. Links are welcome when necessary.

1. What is the proposed name of the user group?

• This is still under discussion. There seems to be a consensus to include the name "Cascadia". I personally think that "Wikimedia Cascadia" sounds like a respectable organization. Others have discussed "Cascadia Wikimedians" when we heard that the term "Wikimedia X" is reserved for chapters, but my strong preference is to have a single name that we can keep if we become a chapter and emphasizes that we are a single organization. I support "Wikimedia Cascadia", "Wiki Group Cascadia", or similar. There seems to be the most consensus for the former and I propose the latter only if AffCom declines "Wikimedia Cascadia". --Pine^✉
  • I, too, would prefer Wikimedia Cascadia, if possible. This sounds more "official". If this is not allowed, then I think simply Cascadia Wikimedians would be best. That being said, there is a discussion currently underway regarding our name, mostly about "Cascadia" vs. "Pacific Northwest". --Another Believer (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As User:Another Believer says- I have heard discussion about Wikimedia Cascadia and Wikimedia Pacific Northwest (which could be WMPNW). This discussion is still somewhat underway and the final name has not been settled. OR drohowa (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• The consensus on this page seems to be "Cascadia" not "Pacific Northwest". The question remains if AffCom will accept "Wikimedia Cascadia" as a name because of the belief that "Wikimedia X" should be reserved for chapter names. Personally I do not want us to need to change our name later, because a name change can be a big legal headache and require a major re-branding effort. --Pine^✉ 07:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Any of the "Wiki Group Cascadia", "Cascadia Wikimedians", or "Cascadia Wikimedians User Group" (this one is my personal favorite) suits better to us. But it is up to you. So please let us know which name you want to go with and we'll settle for that. — T. 12:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

2. Who are the people behind this application?

• I wrote the application taking into consideration the input from others who are interested in forming this group. Anyone in the group can contribute to this discussion. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

3. Which geographical area and context you cover (or plan to cover) with your entity?

• Oregon State and Washington State certainly. People from outside the area may wish to associate with us, such as our expatriate Washington State friends in New York, and our friends who reside in British Columbia. I believe that officially "taking over" British Columbia from Wikimedia Canada would require some negotiation and I think the best route would be for our British Columbia friends to decide among themselves which group best suits their needs. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Oregon and Washington, for sure. For me, British Columbia residents would have the choice of supporting Wikimedia Canada or this group, whichever they preferred. I would welcome their participation with open arms, and at the same time I would not be offended if they decided to conduct projects under the Wikimedia Canada umbrella. I am less concerned about jurisdiction/territory, and more concerned about having a community of individuals who want to work together and promote a mission. The same could be said of Idaho residents. --Another Believer (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• See discussion under Talk:Cascadia Wikimedians#Washington + Oregon or Washington + Oregon + British Columbia?. --Pine^✉ 05:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

4. How many people do you have behind this application?

• There are 24 people who appear to support the concept, and 10 people have signed up to be founding members. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

5. Do you have any prominent Wikimedians behind this application, if so name a few.

• Another Believer, extensive experience in outreach work in the Portland area and in WikiProject LGBT, 67,000+ edits
• Bluerasberry, current Wikimedian-in-Residence at Consumer Reports and also known for involvement with WikiProject Medicine, has supported the concept of Wikimedia Cascadia although has not signed as a founder.
• Blurpeace, administrator on English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons
• Brianhe, involved with WikiProject Motorcycling, Pacific Northwest history, and military history; 35,000+ edits
• Dennis Bratland, involved with WikiProject Motorcycling, 35,000+ edits
• Jmh649, physician known for work with WikiProject Medicine
• Jbmurray, on the faculty of the University of British Columbia
• Benjamin Mako Hill, on the faculty of the University of Washington
• OR drohowa, Wikimedian-in-Residence at the Metropolitan New York Library Council
• Pine, member of the Individual Engagement Grants Committee, staff journalist of the Signpost, and involved with research and governance.
• The Interior, coordinator at the Wikipedia Library, Community Advocate for the Wikimedia Foundation, staff at the Vancouver (BC) Public Library

--Pine^✉ 20:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

6. Please give a short summary of your time path from the founding up to now.

• Discussion began in June 2012, almost exactly 2 years ago. There has been slow, thoughtful development of the idea of formalizing an association of Wikimedians since that time. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

7. Have there been any activities/meetings etc of this group of people? If yes, please give a short summary of your activities.

• Several. See en:Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, en:Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver, Washington en:Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland, and en:Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver. Seattle and Portland have been the most active. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• WikiProject Oregon (English Wikipedia) is very active, and WikiWednesday/Wikipedia meetups have been organized in Portland (off and on) for many years. I have organized Wiki Loves Libraries events in Portland (2012, 2013) and Vancouver, Washington (2013). Two Art+Feminism events have also been hosted, one at Portland State University and a follow-up at Pacific Northwest College of Art. WikiWomen's History Month has been held in Eugene, Oregon the past two years. Other meetups have been held in Portland, and upcoming activities include Wiki Loves Pride and the annual Wiknic. --Another Believer (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

8. Do you keep any monthly/half-yearly/yearly reports of you activities? If yes, please provide links.

• There are notes listed in the archives of the meetups, on our Meta page and talk page, and in the Cascadia public email list. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I tend to construct reports immediately following events or activities, often directly on event/project pages. Until recently, there has not been a need to distribute reports for extended lengths of time. I do think it would be nice to have a regular report for this group, whether they are posted/distributed here at Meta, or at Wikipedia. --Another Believer (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

9. What kind of activities are planned for the future in the group?

• First goals steps would probably include the following

• Programs

• Continue GLAM and other outreach work in Portland
• Continue monthly meetups in Seattle
• Continue outreach work in Seattle. TA3M and our group have communicated, and TA3M has provided a large list of useful contacts of other mission-aligned organizations in the Seattle area. Personally I am especially interested in forming partnerships with research institutions like the Gates Foundation, which might eventually result in Wikimedian-in-Residence or other close partnership arrangements.
• Continue to support volunteers in their existing activities. For example, we have volunteers who are interested in motorcycling.
• Use our affiliation with the Wikimedia brand to help us get access to content that would be difficult to obtain for a member of the general public, such as press-level access to facilities and events.
• There are plenty of other programs that we could pursue depending on the interest of members, such as having Wikipedia Ambassadors at educational institutions or co-sponsoring open source hackathons or conferences.
• The Seattle and Portland areas have many opportunities for partnerships in technology, research, education, and GLAM. Notable tech companies with offices in our area include Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Intel, and Boeing. Notable health organizations in our area include the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, the University of Washington Medical Center and Medical School, the Oregon Health & Science University, and the Gates Foundation. We have numerous education and GLAM organizations.
• We might also host some programs in Cascadia that are intended for benefit of the larger Wikimedia movement, such as the Cameras for Commons Photographers proposed grants program.

• Membership development

• We have some excellent Wikimedians who have signed up to support Wikimedia Cascadia, but we can always use more. Ideally the membership will grow over time. Outreach to other open-source, research, GLAM, and education organizations may help.

• Organizational development, initial funding, and initial infrastructure

• Incorporate and register as a nonprofit for liability protection and tax purposes. This is relatively straightforward in Washington State as of the last time I looked, and we may also need to register in Oregon State. No decision has been made on where we will incorporate, but because of my existing familiarity with Washington processes I would feel comfortable with incorporating here. Board members do not need to be Washington State residents in order for the incorporation to happen in Washington. The most difficult work is likely to involve writing bylaws and 501(c)(3) recognition. For bylaws we can borrow from other US thematic organizations and adapt as we think best. 501(c)(3) is a long term project but would make it more likely we would get donor funds. While I think it would be preferable to have the services of an attorney for the registration, we will need to research the cost and decide if this seems worthwhile for our group with its relatively simple needs, and we would need to find a way to pay the attorney for their services, which might involve a GAC grant request. Personally I feel that our members' energy is best expended on programmatic work so it may make sense to have short-term contracts for an attorney or tax professional to handle the registration matters, even though I believe that with our straightforward needs at this time I might be able to do the job myself.
• We would need to establish our board. Currently I think we can have a "coalition of the willing" serve on our board. Thankfully, there is no one who has signed up to support this group that I have a reason to think would be unsuitable to serve on the board of this small organization. If the organization grows we may need to have board elections, which is a good problem to have.
• We have no need for a dedicated office at this time, but it would be beneficial to have a P.O. box, webpage, general email inbox, and perhaps a virtual phone number or cheap cell phone to be used only for business purposes and that we can distribute in public without compromising the privacy of members' personal phone numbers. Part-time shared "Co-working" offices in the Seattle area are inexpensive and also provide meeting rooms and networking opportunities, so this might be a good option.
• We will need, eventually, to have some bank accounts and accounting systems suitable for our needs. Initially our needs are small. I am estimating an initial budget of $1000. The $1000 is mostly for registration fees, a PO box, a phone number, the accounting software subscription, and any professional services fees for an attorney or tax professional. I believe that an internet-hosted accounting solution is probably adequate; this solution would allow board members to look at the organization's accounts from remote locations. For banking services, there are a number of non-profit credit unions that may be adequate for our needs with online banking. There is not yet a consensus on who will handle these matters for the organization or serve as officers of the organization. We will likely need to obtain a grant from GAC to cover the $1000.
• We are also likely to need some form of liability insurance for directors and officers and for the organization as a whole. I believe that Wikimedia DC has established this insurance for their group and it might be beneficial to look at how they have set up their insurance as we think about how to set up our insurance for Cascadia.

--Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this outline, Pine. --Another Believer (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

10. Do you have an overview of how many Wikimedians would like to join the User Group when founded?

• Estimate around 10 initially. An important goal would be to increase this number. I feel 20 would be a reasonable goal within 1 to 2 years. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• This sounds about right. Ideally, more people will be interested in joining once it is officially recognized and there are more coordinated campaigns throughout the region. --Another Believer (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

11. Is you entity already legally registered?

• No, this would be one of our first tasks. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Further discussion required. Is this necessary? In which areas? Oregon, Washington, British Columbia? I am not sure about requirements for user group status, but this is certainly an area that can be addressed in greater detail, sooner or later. --Another Believer (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Registration happens at the same time as incorporation in Washington, I believe. Registration but not incorporation would likely be required for Oregon if we operate there. We might need to register in British Columbia if we operate there. --Pine^✉ 07:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

12. Do you have a bylaws for you entity? If yes, have the bylaws been reviewed by a lawyer/specialist?

• No. We can look to bylaws that have already been developed by other United States thematic organizations. I am hoping that we can keep the legal costs to a reasonable level. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

13. Please, summarize your focus in a few lines.

• We have diverse interests in this group. We are interested in cultural outreach, GLAM, open source and open data, research, health care and public health, motorcycling, and Cascadia-themed content. Activities may change depending on the interests of the members. Our varied interests are good in the sense that this Cascadia group can serve multiple purposes, but challenging in the sense that I feel we need more active members to make the group have momentum and be sustainable in the long term. --Pine^✉

Thank you again for contacting us. And please contact us if you have any queries.

Sincerely, Tanvir

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_user_group_creation_guide

Affcom update

I asked Affcom for an update about our application. They said that they "will get to that soon." --Pine^✉ 07:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania?

Anyone going to Wikimania in London? -Another Believer (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

See Cascadia Meetup if you want to connect at some point during the conference! --Another Believer (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User group name

As noted in the user group application questions above, we have three user group name to choose from:

• Wiki Group Cascadia
• Cascadia Wikimedians
• Cascadia Wikimedians User Group

Thoughts? --Another Believer (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• My preference is for Cascadia Wikimedians. Short, simple, and consistent with similar user group names. --Another Believer (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur. Libcub (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I vote Cascadia Wikimedians Mcnabber091 (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer Cascadia Wikimedians because it's short. Wiki Group Cascadia is nice too but I think it has the potential to be a little confusing because there are so many wikis out there and even quite a lot in Cascadia. —mako๛ 17:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• My preference is for Wiki Group Cascadia because that emphasizes that we're a single group and sounds more professional. --Pine^✉ 06:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Request: Could you please let me know on my talkpage or email when you reached a decision? Thanks! — T. 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest to set-up a vote alike system (possibly with a flexible time frame) just to see which one is the most preferable. — T. 12:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Some others that have come to mind: Cascadia User Group, or Cascadia Wiki User Group? Just thinking out loud. --Another Believer (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Another Believer in my opinion "Cascadia User Group" is too generic and "Cascadia Wiki User Group" sounds like we are users of a "Cascadia Wiki". Can you discuss with me on IRC? --Pine^✉ 04:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been speaking with AffCom here at Wikimania. It sounds like the name is the last hoop we need to jump through for user group recognition. By my count, four people here have expressed their preference for Cascadia Wikimedians and one prefers Wiki Group Cascadia. Is there a way we can finalize this as soon as possible? --Another Believer (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Another Believer I am conceding to Cascadia Wikimedians. I have emailed Tanvir. --Pine^✉ 20:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Pine, for your flexibility and for contacting Tanvir. --Another Believer (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Portland, Oregon: Feminist and Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Sept. 13

For anyone wanting to attend in person or support our efforts remotely, there will be a Feminist and Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon in Portland, Oregon on Saturday, September 13. --Another Believer (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just sharing a few pictures from the event. Thanks to all who came! I estimate there were around 30 participants, mostly female.

• 
• 
• 

-Another Believer (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's official! User group approved by Affiliations Committee

• Affiliations Committee/Resolutions/Cascadia Wikimedians - Liaison approval, September 2014

It's official -- Cascadia Wikimedians has been approved by the Affiliations Committee! A big thank you to all who have helped to make this become a reality. There remains some set up work to be done. Some conversations have taken place on the mailing list, but it might also be worth discussing the next steps here. --Another Believer (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Mailing list

Attention supporters: Admrboltz, Another Believer, Arlolra, Benjamin Mako Hill, Blue Rasberry, Blurpeace, Brianhe, Cindamuse, Dennis Bratland, Djembayz, Dschwen, Epistemophiliac, GabrielF, GeorgeBarnick, Jtmorgan, Legoktm, Llywrch, Maximilianklein, Mcnabber091, OR drohowa, Peaceray, Quiddity, Riley Huntley, Sodaant, The Interior, Vanisaac, and Yawnbox: we are now recognized as a user group! Please subscribe to [1] for updates. --Pine^✉ 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving this from the main page to this talk page. --Another Believer (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another Believer thanks. I have made updates to the main page, please check to see if you are in agreement. --Pine^✉ 17:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for making these improvements. I did change the lead to read "Cascadia Wikimedians is the Wikimedia user group which serves as the regional affiliate for the Cascadia region of North America…", since the group is (at least for now) just an affiliate and not an independent nonprofit organization. --Another Believer (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Registration open for Community Data Science Workshops in Seattle, November 7 - 22

As we discussed at last week's Seattle meetup, Mako, Frances Hocutt and I are organizing a series of free, public workshops that use Wikimedia data to teach people programming and data science skills. The first sessions are on November 7th and 8th. Go here for more information and to register, and contact Mako or me if you'd like to volunteer/mentor! Cheers, Jtmorgan (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User group name discussion with Affiliation Committee, part 2

Hi Cascadians,

The Affiliations Committee, in association with WMF Legal, has reversed its previous approval of our proposed group name of Cascadia Wikimedians. There appears to be a desire on their part to emphasize within our legal name that we are a user group. Personally I am frustrated by this change of opinion, I feel that this degree of concern with group names is excessive, and I feel that groups should have more autonomy in choosing their names since we are legally independent of WMF. I hope to discuss these and other matters via a Hangout conversation with the chair of the Affiliations Committee. Affcom and WMF are aware of our frustration with the length of what should have been a lightweight approval process for our group, and I have made clear to Affcom and WMF that I believe that the user group approval process has gone astray from the easy process that the WMF Board intended.

Our frustration aside, let us now discuss how we might agree on an alternative group name. I have placed two options below and voiced my personal opinions, and I hope that other Cascadians will also comment so that we can achieve consensus within about a week. Thanks, --Pine^✉ 07:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alternative 1: "Cascadia Wikimedians User Group"

• Oppose I feel that this name is cumbersome and a mouthful. --Pine^✉ 07:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Consistent with other user group/affiliate names; reflects connection to the Wikimedia movement. --Another Believer (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Likely I think that the concern that AffCom & WMF Legal have is including "User Group" in the name. Peaceray (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment We should also consider potential acronyms. Rather than CWUG, which could be pronounced "kwug" or "c-wug" (that could be confused with "sea-wug", which would imply Seattle), I would suggest CaW-UG. (? Why CaW-UG?) Well, we could use CaW for shorthand & it refers to the sound of the raven/crow, a bird that is closely identified with the mythologies of our bioregion. Peaceray (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how much we should worry about acronyms, though we should be conscious not to pick a name that would produce a vulgar acronym. I imagine most people will refer to the group commonly as Wikimedia Cascadia or Cascadia Wikimedians. --Another Believer (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support This puts the most important part at the start, and matches most of the other Wikimedia user groups. It also has echoes of LUGs (linux user groups) and other UGs, which seems appropriate. Quiddity (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Sounds totally fine. We're going to have to change our name Real Soon Now when we become a chapter anyway, right? ;) —mako๛ 23:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alternative 2: "Wiki Group Cascadia"

• Support It's concise. It avoids using the trademarked "Wikimedia" name, so WMF has no legal grounds to disapprove it. --Pine^✉ 07:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• I won't oppose, but I do prefer a name that somehow links to the group to the Wikimedia movement. Otherwise we are just a group of wiki enthusiasts? --Another Believer (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Unlikely I do not know if this is likely to be acceptable to AffCom/WMF Legal as it does not explicitly include "User Group" in the name. Peaceray (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral No objections at all but it be nice to refer to Wikimedia in the name. —mako๛ 23:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Your alternative here

Discussion

• I, too, am frustrated that we now have to revisit this discussion when we should be focusing on other tasks. That being said, best not to dwell and to move forward. Pine, thank you for your continued patience and willingness to keep moving things along. --Another Believer (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Question: It appears that AffCom & WMF Legal are primarily concerned with having User Group as part of the name to designate our function. Is what matters here more the inclusion of the words "User Group" is of importance to them than the issues about the "Wikimedia" brand. Is that the real crux of the matter? Peaceray (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• "User group" is a legal term made up by the WMF for the purpose of being an unattractive name with no particular meaning to the outside world, but which is obviously niche and distanced from their brand. The unfortunate part of this is that in distancing the community from their brand, they actually try to distance these groups from society. If the heart of the problem is that they want a group designation in the name, then I might prefer saying "Cascadian Wikimedians... Society, Club, Foundation, Network, Association, Fellowship, Federation, Syndicate, Congress, or Alliance." Those words have obvious meaning, whereas "user group" is a en:WP:NEOLOGISM and en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: Consensus shows a preference for the name Cascadia Wikimedians User Group and we have moved forward by giving this name to AffCom/WMF re: user group agreement. The agreement has been signed. We now just wait for a return signature from WMF, and then we are OFFICIAL! -Another Believer (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Annual plan development process

I'm reposting this here from our email discussion. This is a working guideline and is subject to change.

• Done: Assemble our Board; get consensus for creating a user group including its name and geographic scope; early program brainstorming and wishlisting; Affcom affiliation approval

• Step 1 (now): Draft of program list with community input; finance and legal work in background; WMF trademark agreement

• Step 2: Board creation of bylaws and appointment of officers; Board selection of programs and calendar for programs; Board authorization to draft a budget and grant proposal; Board authorization to register Cascadia Wikimedians User Group as a nonprofit corporation with relevant government agencies; Board authorization to establish a registered agent and to create a bank account; Board authorization to seek a small "bridging the gap" grant for legal startup expenses like registered agent services prior to our Annual Plan grant; Board approval of trademark agreement with WMF

• Step 3: Budget and program plan/calendar draft development; obtain small grant for legal startup expenses and execute the funded tasks

• Step 4: Community review of budget and program plan/calendar

• Step 5: Board approval of budget, program plan/calendar, and grant request(s) to fund the budget

• Step 6: Submit budget and grant proposal for review by grantmaker(s)

• Step 7: Receive grant funding and begin to execute programs (:

• After Step 7: Quarterly Board reviews until it's time to create the next annual plan, with possible special meetings on occasion between regular quarterly meetings.

--Pine^✉ 04:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Bylaws

As Pine suggested previously, Wikimedia NYC bylaws may be a good model from which to base Cascadia bylaws. Wiki Project Med adopted these bylaws with modification.

A peculiarity of these bylaws is that they allow proxy voting, so board members need not attend meetings. This is useful for NYC because one active online board member lives in India, and others often are more active online than in person at meetings. The organization has also had board members who attended in person, but who did no Wikimedia project editing and instead supported by helping in other ways.

When thinking of bylaws, the hot topic to consider lately is the extent to which Cascadia will be an open-membership group, especially with regard to voting rights. Historically being open has caused problems because these are grassroots community groups which have a lot of power in holding trademark usage rights, the ability to request WMF funds, and brand recognition. The Wiki Ed Foundation took the route of being a closed organization, because they did not want community management of their millions of dollars. Likewise, Wiki Project Med elects board members internally from the existing board, so while it allows anyone to be a member, the organization's board does not share power like some of the other wiki organizations.

Recently in India protesting community members kicked out 6 of 7 board members, and the new board completely halted most projects and planning. This happened because they started as a community group expecting small growth, but as soon as they had some power other people immediately wanted a new direction for the organization.

In my opinion, having a closed board membership gives the most stability. It is not part of the traditional wiki practice of making everything open and changeable, but considering the responsibilities that chapters have, a lot is at risk when an organization deviates from the norm in the nonprofit world. I think it would be a conservative and viable choice to run this organization as a traditional nonprofit rather than with an anyone-can-edit board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that establishing a closed board membership will result in the current user group recognition being withdrawn, and will prevent the group from being recognized as a chapter, thematic organization, or user group in the future. This isn't to say that you can't set up such a structure and still be involved with the movement in such capacity—obviously, the Wiki Ed Foundation has done so—but it will mean that you'll no longer be formally affiliated, and will probably need to avoid using Wikimedia trademarks (as Wiki Ed has done) as well. Kirill Lokshin ^[talk] 13:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin What is the nature of the formal affiliation that Wiki Ed has achieved, and what other organizations have that status? To what extent does AffCom have oversight of Wiki Ed? Can you direct me to the AffCom member who is oversees India? I want to ask AffCom about the extent to which Affcom wishes to promote sudden total board changes and control over assets to people without Wikipedia accounts. Also can you comment on Wiki Project Med's board structure, since AffCom approved that and it is closed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:

1. The Wiki Ed Foundation does not currently have any formal affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation. As far as the Affiliations Committee is concerned, Wiki Ed is an external entity that happens to work on Wikimedia-related programs (similar to a GLAM organization that supports Wikimedia, for example); we have no oversight role in relation to it.
2. The current AffCom liaison to Wikimedia India is Tanvir Rahman (see the list of liaisons).
3. According to Wiki Project Med's bylaws, its board is elected by an open membership (see Article II, Section 1 and Article III, Section 2).

Kirill Lokshin ^[talk] 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin I see. Wiki Ed is something different, and Wiki Med is open membership. I will talk with Tanvir about India. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I got the inside secret scoop about Kirill Lokshin's organization from a hot tipster! Rumor is, that in Kirill's own Wikimedia District of Columbia chapter, they use staggered voting so as to avoid having a chapter overthrow by outsiders. Wikimedia DC gets about 20 votes in its board elections, and I was wondering if as in the India case a few people could join the chapter then vote the entire board out to send the chapter in a different direction. Something like this happened with Germany also in the past year, although in that case, at least established Wikimedia community participants were elected. While I still think DC's model is vulnerable to a relatively small group of radical actors (30 new members voting to transfer the HQ and bank account to the palace of a foreign prince?), their system of having multi-year terms for board members and only electing some each year means that conspirators have to sustain the takeover while time passes, and during the wait the board ought to be able to reform itself. I still see vulnerability here because I have never heard of any nonprofit being so open as these, but that staggered voting does add a layer of bureaucracy to keep people from walking in the open door as is commonly imagined with typical Wikipedia projects. Perhaps other Wikimedia chapters should use staggered voting for board members also, since that seems to be an acceptable level of open membership and voting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)