Talk:Cascadia Wikimedians

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Wikimedia Cascadia)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikimedia Cascadia logo.svg

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

Page question[edit]

Would anyone object to officially adding "Cascadia bioregion" states to your official list in the lead (i.e. Montana, Idaho, etc...) and also pinging the respective wikiprojects that they could join this group? (Montana is georgraphically split, but the next-nearest user group is Colorado, so if Eastern Montanans don't want to be part of Cascadia, we could offer it as an alternative... Montanabw (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw Invite anyone and add the bioregion if you like.
The historical problem is that a few years ago there were not sources identified which defined the limit of Cascadia. There need not be any sharp boundary - anyone anywhere in the world who wants to join or request support may. Until and unless anything better develops for anyone in the region, any individual or group can have Cascadia support to the extent that it is useful without regard to political lines. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Montanabw and Bluerasberry I'd be glad to see us supporting Idaho and Montana. However, please note that there are legal requirements (not Wikimedia requirements) if we conduct official activities in certain jurisdictions, such as states where we have not registered our organization. Therefore, if anyone wants to hold activities in the name of Cascadia Wikimedians in a jurisdiction, please discuss that in advance with me. There is legal paperwork and real money involved. Those aren't necessarily roadblocks, and expanding our reach is usually a good thing, but we need to think carefully if there is a lot of legal paperwork and/or money involved especially for small or isolated events. We need to look at the cost-benefit ratio before we make commitments. Note that being a member of Cascadia is a much lower threshold than holding events in Cascadia's name. We want to support events, and we need to make sure we do things the right way. Thanks! --Pine 06:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I presume you are incorporated in Washington State? No worries, but how do the Oregonians feel about that? (LOL) I doubt Montana would be hosting WikiConNA any time soon, so no worries. There's a movement afoot to start a Rocky Mountain user group, but given that it's a long way from Shelby to Tuscon, it's not going to be a meetup kind of gig, either. Montanabw (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Montanabw: we're incorporated in Washington, and the plan is to register in Oregon in the short term and British Columbia in the long term. British Columbia is probably more of a stretch than Idaho or Montana would be in terms of paperwork. We've also had occasional discussions about Alaska. If any of these other states looks like they're seriously interested in a meetup group, we'd certainly consider supporting them. --Pine 19:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason to incorporate even in two states? (WMF is incorporated in Florida, after all)(Canada makes sense, though...) Local usergroups probably could do so, but as far as the Cascadia "chapter" (as opposed to a usergroup for meetups), seems that one state is plenty -- maybe if a big event was sponsored, yes, but... All that said, filing nonprofit incorporation for liability purposes is pretty easy in any state, usually a one-page form. But it's the keeping it current by filing the annual reports and such that's daunting, hence why I ask. Filing for federal 501(c)(3) status is a bigger and more complicated deal, though. So, basically, I guess I'm not sure why a multi-stae incorporation is needed if the HQ is in one state, all the dues or monies come to one state, etc... (but if you are talking to a legal eqgle, I'd be interested in knowing more about what they say -- perhaps email me if you'd prefer to chat further.) Montanabw (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Montanabw: registration is different than incorporation. Many jurisdictions at various levels of government require organizations to register in their jurisdictions when the organization "does business" in that jurisdiction, so that the jurisdictions can tax the organizations. Some jurisdictions provide for reduced or no taxes for nonprofits, particularly 501(c)(3) nonprofits, while other jurisdictions make no distinction between for-profit and nonprofit organizations when assessing taxes. --Pine 07:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. (you do know I'm a lawyer, right? LOL! I don't do business law, but...) Basically a "foreign corporation" (i.e. an out of state group) has to register in other states where they "conduct business," but the definition of that varies (see [1] as an example). It's a question of liability, access to the courts, the ability to contract and so on. (So it's a good idea and I'm basically agreeing with you) But it's not a question of taxation, the ability of the state to tax (example: in Montana, any corporation doing business here can be taxed whether they meet the legal requirement to register or not [2]) is independent of the ability to register corporations. Also, where I find local people trip up, state nonprofit incorporation only gets you out from under state taxes, not federal; federal requires the 501(c)(3). All of this is why I don't do business law (lol) it makes my head want to explode. Montanabw (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Announcing WikiConference North America in San Diego, Fri-Mon 7-10 October[edit]

I am inviting participants in Wiki Cascadia to WikiConference North America to be held in San Diego Friday to Monday 7-10 October. Here are further details:

  • The conference includes a track called "community", and I anticipate that topics relating to community organization will be raised in those presentations
  • We are accepting submissions until 31 August.
  • We are accepting scholarship applications 9 August - 23 August. About 40 scholarships are available only for people in Canada, the US, and Mexico. Last year about 200 people applied for scholarships.
  • More volunteers are needed. In the usual wiki-way, anyone may comment on program submissions. At the conference in person, all staff will be volunteer and all attendees are encouraged check in with conference organizers about volunteering for the task queue even for an hour. Anyone interested may contact FloNight or Rosiestep to offer volunteer support.
  • Major sponsorship for the conference comes from the San Diego Public Library who are providing the venue and a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • This is the third year of this conference, with WikiConference USA being in New York in 2014 and in Washington DC in 2015. Check the schedules of those for examples of what kinds of programming will be offered this year.

Discussion about the conference on-wiki could happen at WikiConference North America.

I am one of the organizers for this event. If anyone has questions or comments, then conversation can happen here also. I am a participant in this Wiki Cascadia, and I want the interests of this WikiProject represented at all regional wiki meetups. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Bluerasberry, we maybe should have a local chapter meeting time during the conference, block it out and make rooms available to those who request them ahead of time. Montanabw (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw Yes, this should happen. I am not aware of how to put this on the schedule just yet. I am still not sure what rooms can be reserved when. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd take it to the programming committee; aren't you on that one? FloNight is the chair. Montanabw (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw I am not in a hurry to do this because a Cascadia meeting would be 5-10 people at most, so with a small group, it would be easier to coordinate that spontaneously at the venue. I would prefer to get the larger talks on the schedule, let everyone commit to those, then post something in the leftover space rather than post this smaller meeting first when other events could push it out.
I expect there to be a Cascadia meetup. I just do not expect it to get scheduled first with other things around it. There will be time and space for things to be put on the schedule after the main events are posted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
My thinking would be to have a "meetup hour" -- or social hour or some sort of designated time for all the user groups and chapters to meet, we could assign DC and NYC to big rooms, Cascadia might get a study carrel (!). But the idea would be a designated spot for everyone. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw The schedule is still being developed but in 2014 and 2015, Sunday was the day for meetings of insiders who themselves do outreach. For this conference I am not sure if it is best to sneak these meetings between presentations or even competing against presentations, or to continue to have Sunday be an insiders' meeting day. NYC and DC would likely wish to join smaller groups and not meet, just because people in those groups already meet several times a month and have said enough among themselves. I think everyone wants these things to happen, but since the attendees of these sorts of meetups are likely to be the ones who stay for the whole conference, these meetups tend to get the least-requested schedule slots. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. If that's the deal, given that we are going to have that gap Sunday morning when the library is not available, and then go into Monday on the schedule (but lots of people might leave early)... hmmm.... Do you know anyone in the SoCal groups? Maybe the thing to do would be to find a big breakfast place and have meetups around 10 am Sunday morning before the conference... push together tables, etc... Montanabw (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw I forgot that we cannot meet Sunday morning. Actually, I am not sure how this will work.
There was not any SoCal group until a few months ago, and I am not aware of any Wikipedians involved in user group / chapter management in San Diego. Right now I do not have insight into how or when meetings will happen, except that I can say that the kind of meeting you describe is enough of a priority that I consider it essential and think others would feel the same. It has to be planned somehow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Shoot me an email and we can discuss further off-wiki, maybe you can talk with your fellow Cascadians and I could look at logistics. A late breakfast on Sunday morning (say about 10am) at a venue within spitting distance of the Library might be the way to go. Montanabw (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject United States: 50,000 Challenge[edit]

50k Challenge poster.jpg You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

-Another Believer (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Consultants for WMF strategy plan based in Seattle[edit]

Katherine at the Wikimedia Foundation just shared an update on the 2017 WMF strategic plan.

More details on the plan are at Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017.

In the mailing list, Pine commented that the consultant assisting with this, williamsworks, is based in Seattle. Pine also noted that this could present an opportunity for wiki people in Seattle to exchange ideas with the planners at williamsworks. I agree - the possibility might arise, and if it does, then it would be interesting if Wiki Cascadia people could have a conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)