Well, I would say that probably the chapters are looking for external
funds not because WMF is suggesting to do it, but probably because it's
too much hard to follow the interpretations of the FDC.
Every year that a chapter applies for a FDC grant is like to go to the
sybil (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumaean_Sibyl) because even if the
plan has been adapted to the last strategies of WMF, it's difficult to
define what will be the *new* interpretation of the FDC.
It's not a bad solution to find external funds, but it's critical when
the percentage of this external funding is relatively large. Speaking
about a trendy word: the impact in a chapter is substantial.
As soon the chapters will fund externally for a relevant percentage of
their budget, it means that the main strategy of the chapters will
follow what the donors (big or small donors) will ask. So the workload
is not only to find finds but also to manage stakeholders.
Yes, this will reduce the risks... but the risks of the variability of
the FDC answer!
Now we come back to the main question:
a) it's an usual answer that a no profit association that would fund
their own organization may do a fundraising targeting on small donors,
but it means that the initial funds will be spent to fund the next
fundraising campaign, in general it is suggested that the first years
are spent only to finance the next fundraising. In addition I would add
that it's really stupid to be concurrent of WMF in the main fields where
WMF collects its funds
b) a second solution is to look for big sponsors and for charitable
foundations, but it means a lot of time to acquire the reliance of these
entities and in addition these foundations or donors will impose their
own constraints, its' really difficult that they will open the wallet
only because someone is named Wikimedia X
c) there are also call for projets done by local governements but it
means anyway a big workload to follow the selections and to find
partners and so on
So I am not saying that it's worst to look for external funds but that:
a) it cannot be done in few months (to be a serious external fundraising)
b) it makes sense to do it if this will be the strategy for the
following years because *any change costs*
Yes, there are a lot of opportunities and in my specific case I would
say that Switzerland offers good opportunities also to fund projects
outside Switzerland because the legal system in Switzerland is designed
for *international* projects. The problem is to change the priorities
and to spent the following months to look for funds.
Probably all members of the FDC are too young (as wikimedians) to
remember that the principle of WMF two or three years ago was to focus
the organization of the chapters in the community support and in the
projects. This is a resume of what was said by the board of trusteee in
wikimedia conference in Berlin in the 2012 about the request of chapters
to be payment processors
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2012/Documentation/Day…).
Personally I find the suggestions of the FDC in conflict with what was
said two years ago.
The question is to define clearly a strategy for the following years
because in any of these three cases a longtime strategy is required in
order to find a good fundraising solution.
It means that next years the FDC *cannot* evaluate the work of the
chapters with the current parameters and measures because it's not
honest to ask for a re-arrangement of the priorities, and to ask that
the chapters will have in charge the risks and the costs of this change
and in addition that they have also to be evaluated with an outdated
system of evaluation (in comparison with the current suggestions of the
FDC).
I agree that the Global South may have some difficulties to raise funds
locally, but I disagree that the evaluation of a project done in the
Global South can have the same evaluation of a project done in the
Global North which is financed with external funds.
Regards
On 26.11.2014 22:01, Risker wrote:
At the same time, although I believe that chapters (especially those with
budgets in the FDC range) should at least be able to demonstrate that
they've investigated opportunities, I also am aware that in many regions
the opportunities might be very limited, or could require completion of
highly complex documentation with only a small chance of success. (Anyone
thinking that the FDC asks for a lot of documentation has never completed
the paperwork for a typical research grant.) But chapters are the
organizations best placed to research and analyse their own local
fundraising opportunities, and to figure out which ones are worth pursuing
from both a financial and programmatic point of view. Fundraising can,
indeed, be expensive.
We do have to keep in mind that this is a big, global movement, the
available financial resources are *not* unlimited (contrary to popular
belief), and that there has to be some sort of evidence that the money
being distributed in large grants is generating demonstrated results within
the movement. The nature of those results will vary from grantee to
grantee.
Risker/Anne
--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch