There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other
aspects to be considered, such as transparancy. However, imho fundraising
through chapters should remain the best way).
* Having one organization spreading around money is going to lead, sooner or
later, to that organization solely making decisions on what is important and
what is not. Centralized decision making, centralized prioritising.
* Forcing chapters to abide the WMF cyclus is centralization - an efficient
grant system likely includes fixed moments to ask for grants. Many chapters
currently still have a lot of flexibility to try out programs. If we would
not have had such flexibility, we would not have had Wiki Loves Monuments
for example - a lot of the budget part happened late in the execution
because 95% happens with volunteers.
* Asking grants automatically means language issues. Chapters not having
English as a mother tongue, *will* be more hesistant, no matter what help
you put in place. It will be a big effort, because more bottle necks
(English speakers) are introduced.
* Asking for external grants is much harder - many Dutch grant organizations
for example have a requirement that maximum x% of your budget can come from
grants (For example, Mondriaanstichting has a maximum of 40% grant money).
If we are forced to grant request to the foundation, that cuts off that
income source too.
* Not giving chapters access to donor data has many side effects - because
they will no longer be the organization responsible for communicating with
them. Sure, they would need to be responsible in that too, but denying them
access also means they cannot communicate their activities at the same time,
and get more volunteers involved from externally.
Maybe centralization is not your goal, but it is what you are doing. Having
a non-grant funding just makes an organization more independent, and makes
it more flexible and responsible. That organization is more likely to
develop itself professionally.
That does not leave out that there are many problems with the current
distribution system (50/50 etc) but that is a whole other discussion.
2011/8/11 Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia-inc.com>
On 8/10/11 8:51 PM, Birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com wrote:
I don't think chapters are being cut off I
think they are being
centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe
will make chapters ineffective.
Chapters are not being centralized. I don't know how I can be more clear.
The idea that the only thing that can make chapters really decentralized
is the very narrow question of who actually processes the donation is
foundation-l mailing list