On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
More to the point, according to  nearly 80% of
fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapters in
the fundraiser is not, in anyway, an alternative to concentrating
money in the WMF.
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.