On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapters in the fundraiser is not, in anyway, an alternative to concentrating money in the WMF.
[1]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWl...
That link shows 67.75% as being from the USA.
That's why I said North America.
Due diligence requires management to be wary of what they "have no reason to expect". For a person who hasn't seen grant request outlines you do a lot of speculation about what they don't contain. To the extent that chapters require grants, it is wholly reasonable that they establish the need for those grants, and be accountable for them when they receive them. Beyond the startup stage chapters should strive to have independent core funding. so as not to require WMF grants to fund core operations. That's an important part of being responsible and accountable; national laws too play a big role in establishing accountability and transparency. It would be irresponsible for a chapter board member to base his policy stands on the suggested interpretation of one WMF board member.
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). A responsible chapter board member, as you say, should base his or her assumptions on what is likely and on the information currently available, not on fears of a worst-case scenario.
Nathan