Perhaps we might reflect on all the mistakes made by far older global
NPOs - the Catholic Church and all the younger proselytizing churches
are good examples.The mission has always been the dissemination of
knowledge (of a specific sort), so it has experiences that might be
helpful - what not to do, etc.
They've always had wealthy and poor locales. A large part of their
efforts have been devoted to raising money from the wealthy to fund
programs for the poor. They all have had to learn how to meet the legal
obligations of whichever states they are located and have evolved
systems to manage their money - some of which work better than others.
On 8/12/2011 7:21 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> On Thu,
Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow<wikipedia(a)frontier.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
>> > >> On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>>> > >> > Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of
decentralization. The
>>> > >> > Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our
list of principles.
>>> > >> > To my mind "decentralization is important"
raises a whole bunch of
>>> > >> > other important questions: is decentralization more
important than
>>> > >> > efficiency as a working principle?
>> > >> I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a
diversity of
>> > >> tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization
should
>> > >> help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to
maximize
>> > >> revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I
don't
>> > >> mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to
sacrifice
>> > >> a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other
value we
>> > >> think is important like decentralization.
>>> > >> > One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter
financials was that
>>> > >> > there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive
donations and
>>> > >> > haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus
have little to no
>>> > >> > money to support program work. Though mostly outside
the scope of the
>>> > >> > Board's letter, this is for instance one part of
our model that I
>>> > >> > would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere
should have better
>>> > >> > access to resources to get things done. On this
specific point, I do
>>> > >> > disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed
grants program [and
>>> > >> > it's true we're not there yet, but want to be
soon] could actually
>>> > >> > help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money
needed for
>>> > >> > program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have
to develop the
>>> > >> > (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to
directly fundraise
>>> > >> > with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns.
>> > >> I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a
>> > >> "well-developed" grants program. In many contexts, as
grants programs
>> > >> develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop
increasingly
>> > >> complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that
point, it
>> > >> may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we
are
>> > >> trying to move away from.
>> > >>
>> > >> --Michael Snow
>> > >>
> > >
> > >Fair point. By "well-developed" I just meant "something that
works well."
> > >One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the
> idea
> > >of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see
> the
> > >expansion of the WMDE program, as well.
> > >
> > >-- phoebe
> > >I can't help but point out that is begging the question. [1] It is a
> logical fallacy to say in answer to concerns that a grants program won't
> work well that you are supporting well-developed grants program (defined as
> something that works well). It is just wishful thinking.
>
> BirgitteSB
>
>
> [
1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
>
>
Sorry, I didn't intend to beg the question. Maybe I misread
Michael's
comment. I thought he was saying that a high-overhead grants program, such
as many granting organizations end up with after a few years, would not be
helpful. My response is that we should strive to build a functional
low-overhead grants program. Yes, that is "wishful thinking", since it's
an
aspirational goal, but it's also in response to concern over a hypothetical
future... I think it's totally fair to think about what kind of criteria we
would like to see in a grants program generally (e.g. low overhead, open to
all, etc.), since the program will need to be expanded quite a bit if it
covers funding many more chapters and groups. Now if people don't think it's
*possible* to build a low-overhead grants program, that's a fair point:)
best,
phoebe