[Foundation-l] Chapters

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:24, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters
>> should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't
>> complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build
>> infrastructure for handling hundreds of applications and testing them
>> on anti-terrorism laws, that's up to it.
>
> anti-terrorism laws are, hopefully, not going to be a major problem.
> anti-lobbying restrictions added by WMF are.
> These restrictions on the chapter grants allow the WMF to continue to
> say "NONE" in the relevant sections of its annual 990 form.

What I am saying is that Foundation will have to check every program
of every chapter, no matter if it would give one large or per-program
grants. And it will have to do no matter if chapters think that it is
their problem.

What would WMF do:
* If it finds <whatever unacceptable> in a program, it would say:
Please, find funds for that at some other place.
* If it finds <whatever unacceptable> too late, chapter for sure
wouldn't be internally responsible if it doesn't have a person with
relevant knowledge.

That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities.
Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger
chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that
will lead into even more delay in allocating grants. And that will
become WMF's problem, as the problem is when you plan to spend some
money and you don't do that.

And about chapters: There are two chapters' Board representatives. And
their term is going to be expired in half of the year or so. If
chapters are not happy with their current representation, they should
choose other persons to take care about their interests.