- 1 Discussion with the Affiliations Committee
- 2 Wikimania?
- 3 Affcom update
- 4 User group name
- 5 Portland, Oregon: Feminist and Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Sept. 13
- 6 It's official! User group approved by Affiliations Committee
- 7 Mailing list
- 8 Registration open for Community Data Science Workshops in Seattle, November 7 - 22
- 9 User group name discussion with Affiliation Committee, part 2
Discussion with the Affiliations Committee
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 . 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)
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.
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
6. Please give a short summary of your time path from the founding up to now.
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
- 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)
11. Is you entity already legally registered?
- 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)
12. Do you have a bylaws for you entity? If yes, have the bylaws been reviewed by a lawyer/specialist?
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.
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
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.
It's official! User group approved by Affiliations Committee
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)
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  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
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)
- 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)
- Your alternative here
- 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)