On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF plans for grants to be the interim method of funding for developing chapters (aside from that raised independently by the chapters themselves) then I expect that they will tweak the process to account for the specific issues involved (like not wanting to bury chapters in book-length paperwork requirements).
Oh, really? Do you really believe that current Foundation staff is capable of handling at least 30 different organization around the world? I doubt it. Even now, the situation is fairly ridiculous: they sign the same (am I correct?) agreement with all chapters, regardless of how much would this chapter get, what is its budget, how difficult is it to transfer money to and fro.
The problem with "over-budget money" may be solved fairly easily: just make an independent, per-chapter-tailored fundraiser. If UK chapter collects its budget faster than WMF, just change their landing page to WMF, and they will not get unused money! Neither will they have to transfer anything to WMF. If some other chapter does not collect its budget, make its fundraiser longer. Some chapters are doomed to be locally underfunded; they can apply for WMF grants. Besides, some chapters are located in countries where December fundraising is legally problematic.
But please, get rid of the idea that WMF can act in a similar way to all chapters and sign the same agreement. Instead of forcing one-way funding model, Foundation should *really* work on the way it communicates with chapters. Either by loosening the control or by increasing the amount of time spent on them. Honestly, I believe that right now it would extremely irresponsible from their side to take obligations of approving and controlling the budget of 30 chapters, as am almost certain they would not be able to fulfill them adequately.
--vvv