On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mike
I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in
comparison
is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not
an
international one based in another country.
I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, "WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules", so is a German,
French
or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when
they
will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones
which
doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party.
I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of charitable funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in "Global south"). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving them time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started, doesn't address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money
from
all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now, but in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be given freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address
most
of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund
collection
(it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through
a
grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time.
Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we stick to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to
develop
what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there
is
no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues.
Theo
The whole idea of requiring non-US chapters to abide by US law is a strawman. No one has suggested, anywhere, that chapters need to follow U.S. law. What has been suggested, by the letter and by other comments, is that the WMF must follow US law, including in how it works with international organisations and donations that flow to them through the WMF.
Please read points 4 and 5.[1] Let me quote "This agreement is subject to the laws of the United States of America and the State of California, without regard to conflict of law rules", point 4 lays out the venue to be San Francisco County, California for any litigation between the parties.
Additionally, the WMF has self-imposed obligations beyond the law. In order to meet both its legal and other obligations, the WMF needs to be satisfied that funds are being managed and spent appropriately. This requires a WMF "one size fits all" general policy; WM DE, WM FR, WM CH etc. may be so sophisticated that assurances and disclosures to the WMF are unnecessary, but this can't be said for all chapters or chapters not yet established.
You are giving undue weight when you say "self-imposed obligations beyond the law" but that is a matter of opinion. Actually I never argued that "sophisticated" chapters don't require assurance and disclosure, they do, and most of them do comply. There are however no requirements set forth by WMF on what to comply on. There are 35+ chapters in total, only about 10 or so have participated in fundraiser, this ability was rolled out to more chapters, it still doesn't cover even half of them. I do believe that there are local laws not permitting them from joining or their own choice or infrastructure, either way, there is a development cycle that most chapters go through before they join fundraising. This would prevent maturation and effectively, put the current conditions in stasis.
Theo
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011/Chapters/Fundraising_Agreeme...