On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:51 PM,
<Birgitte_sb(a)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