On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:24, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build infrastructure for handling hundreds of applications and testing them on anti-terrorism laws, that's up to it.
anti-terrorism laws are, hopefully, not going to be a major problem. anti-lobbying restrictions added by WMF are. These restrictions on the chapter grants allow the WMF to continue to say "NONE" in the relevant sections of its annual 990 form.
What I am saying is that Foundation will have to check every program of every chapter, no matter if it would give one large or per-program grants. And it will have to do no matter if chapters think that it is their problem.
What would WMF do: * If it finds <whatever unacceptable> in a program, it would say: Please, find funds for that at some other place. * If it finds <whatever unacceptable> too late, chapter for sure wouldn't be internally responsible if it doesn't have a person with relevant knowledge.
That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities. Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that will lead into even more delay in allocating grants. And that will become WMF's problem, as the problem is when you plan to spend some money and you don't do that.
And about chapters: There are two chapters' Board representatives. And their term is going to be expired in half of the year or so. If chapters are not happy with their current representation, they should choose other persons to take care about their interests.