On 9 August 2011 18:29, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 August 2011 08:18, David Gerard
> On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is all very true, and very insightful;
but what does it have to do with
> That the message from WMF is about a
decentralisation not working from
> their perspective, so recentralising fundraising.
However it was the WMF that created that particular
decentralisation in the first place.
This is begging the question: it presumes ownership. It also assumes
that destroying that decentralisation is symmetrical with having first
allowed and encouraged it, which is not in any way the case.
The real problem with the present approach is - *even if* it's a
correct thing for the trustees to do (once we're actually clear on
what it is they're doing) - is:
* Number of chapters people who've gone "hey, great idea!": 0.
* Number of chapters people who've gone "you're pissing us about so
badly we almost can't work with you": quite a lot.
Being on the board of a tiny nonprofit is a thankless and grinding
task at the best of times. Finding people who both want to do the job
and are any good at all is *not easy*.
This is a potentially catastrophic failure of volunteer liaison.
If the aim were to get rid of chapters altogether, this would have
been an excellent method of achieving it.
(I don't think that is the intent - apparently WMF feels like it can
mess people around and still get 100% from them. I do consider that
the problems really haven't been considered.)
Let me reiterate, this is still a really big problem even if this was
a 100% defensible decision by the board.