This thread puzzles me. When I was the Chair of a certain chapter, I recall a strategy meeting where I was the only participant who did not put "fund raising" as a 9/10 priority, I set it as merely 5/10. I guess it is in this area of money and "branding" that world-views are conflicting.
When we first coined the word "editathon" the working model was that they were open events run at *zero cost* (we had no staff and insignificant funds). Later we started providing a free buffet, paying expenses for "trained helpers" and some others, and a couple years after that it started to become impossible to organize an editathon without first having an employee agreeing it, being required to use official feedback forms and committing to making event reports to help with future funding.
Basic facts: * Unpaid volunteer editathon participants do not need travel costs, they should be local people who can get on a local bus, and do not need to travel hundreds of miles. * Editathons work well when attendees can buy their own food from a local cafe or expect a social event afterwards where they pay their own costs. Frequently the hosting institution provides drinks and sandwiches for free. * Editathons work perfectly well without incurring employee costs (this is why editathons work in countries where there are no Wikimedia employees). Volunteers who know enough about Wikimedia projects to get a geonotice approved and discuss the event in advance on relevant wikiproject noticeboards or email lists do not need, nor even ask for, funds. * The world is stuffed with free venues and institutions looking to support open knowledge. I had several organizations spontaneously offer me top class venues in the UK, so long as I could get a handful of keen editors to commit to coming. We are not even close to running out of goodwill of this type.
Fae