Talk:Wikimedia United States Chapters Council

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Is this page's title intentional, or is "Unites" supposed to be "United"? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I didnt' even notice. It should be united. (moves the page) Cbrown1023 talk 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle meetups

I corrected this entry, because there have been four Seattle meetups: 2 in 2005, & 2 in 2006. (I have only been able to attend 2.) I guess it's time to convene another. -- Llywrch 22:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion to rapidly broaden Wikimedia chapters

My particular interest is peer organizations and how they can grow successfully yet remain with the basic characteristics of small, informal peer associations. I think it is possible, by putting together certain elements that are known to work individually, but which have never been tried in combination. For a fuller -- but still limited -- exploration of this, see beyondpolitics.org; however, only one point is important at this time in this context.

The Free Association part of the Free Association / Delegable Proxy concept introduced on beyondpolitics.org is taken from the foundation Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous. The specific tradition most on point here is, in part, in its long form, "Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation." In fact, in practice, if a single alcoholic decides to start a group, it is possible to gain a group listing, specifying a meeting place and time. There is no assumption that any group "owns" a town or area, and the saying in AA, from long experience, is "all it takes to start a meeting in AA is a resentment and a coffee pot."

From this, AA grew explosively. Local meetings, instead of becoming intractably large, rapidly fissioned, creating more meeting times and places where the personal sharing of experience that is so important to AA remained possible; yet these meetings remained connected through massive cross-membership and intergroup functions. Some alcoholics might attend only a favorite meeting, perhaps once a week; others might go to a meeting every day, and to many different locations, different "meetings." They are all Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, but there is no central control. And, by the way, there is never any central subsidy or startup funding, the money flows exclusively in the other direction, that is, any contributions collected in excess of what a local meeting needs may be passed on to Intergroup or to the AA central office, but never does the central organization, such as it is, sponsor or subsidize local meetings to start. *However*, it will list such meetings and lone members desiring contact. Local meetings have no "assessments," they need forward nothing to more central activities, they could instead throw a party, and many do! (But usually they *also* make some contributions to intergroup expenses, etc.)

From this, the suggestion here: Set up a list for "proposed" meeting locations. Anyone may add a Wikimedia user link to that list, in the appropriate location, and likewise anyone may add a location to the list or improve its organization. In this way, those who might like to meet with other local editors and other users may announce their willingness to help get it together. And it only takes two to actually have a "chapter." Maybe these two get together for coffee at some scheduled time and public location, thus creating opportunities for others to join in.

And, of course, those that think this a waste of time don't have to lift a finger for it.

What about the "provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation."? Would that apply?

Yes, I would suggest. If a group advertised that it was forming with some particular POV, it could create controversy that would affect Wikimedia projects. Every AA group is open to every alcoholic, without prejudice. This does not prevent meetings from protecting themselves, exceptions can be made by any meeting for those who are considered dangerous or abusive in the meeting context. There is controversy in AA over "special qualification" meetings, such as meetings which announce that they are for men, or women, or gay; no national decision, however, has been imposed on such meetings, to my knowledge; it is understood that they are support groups, not advocating some POV -- not even "gay is okay." But, of course, one might hear that at a gay AA meeting! Content is utterly unregulated centrally.

Further, there is nothing to prevent those who meet in local meetings from forming independent interest groups with some POV or special purpose. Again, the AA traditions cover this; treatment centers and political action groups do form as a result of the independent action of AA members, but they are never called "AA" projects. Rather, they might be, for example, something like the "Town Alcoholism Council" project, which is controlled by those who set it up. Who just might happen to all be members of AA, but they don't generally advertise that, though individually they might acknowledge being alcoholics if they want.

So any meeting may determine its own rules as to how it operates internally. Meetings *can* exclude individuals, but it is extraordinarily rare, in my understanding. (Let me add that I'm not an alcoholic, so my experience with AA is limited to extensive study of the written material, plus substantial attendance at open meetings.)

I will do the setup myself, but wanted to outline the idea here first to solicit comment. Plus I don't have time today, beyond this.... --Abd 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding metropolitan St. Louis Missouri

As a resident of the area above, which hasn't yet had any sort of official meetup, so far as I can tell, does anyone have any particular pointers for how I would try to go about setting one up? Unfortunately, it would probably be best to leave the message on my wikipedia talk page, as I unfortuntely spend altogether too much time in that entity. Thank you. John Carter 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)