On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe will make chapters ineffective. Frankly, I think cutting off their funding
would
be less detrimental (although still not a good thing) to the chapter's long-term effectiveness than centralizing them into a grant program. It would be worse for the near-term, but many would still recover from it
as
owner-led organizations funded locally outside of the WMF banner
campaign.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but where has it been suggested that
chapters
would not remain free to raise funds independently of the WMF? My impression was that the change being discussed here would merely remove participation in the WMF fundraiser as a funding source and replace it
with
direct WMF grants; presumably chapters could seek funding elsewhere?
I don't see why such a thing wouldn't be possible, but I don't find it very likely. I am looking mostly at the incentives each structure produces. As the proposal seems to be funding the WMF approved operating budget of a chapter with a WMF grant, I don' t think the general rule will be an organization that is locally funded. Do you find it otherwise?
I would imagine that would depend on whether a chapter would like to do things that the WMF is not willing to fund. Obviously, if the grants cover everything a chapter desires, there will be little motivation to raise funds elsewhere; but if a chapter asks for something and is refused, I imagine there would be a great deal of interest in seeking additional funding.
Kirill