Theo writes:
Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US.
I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are "more transparent and fiscally responsible" than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements.
So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that it's not a question of whose rules are "better," whose motives are better, who is more trustworthy, etc. I believe it's appropriate for everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly different.
This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules.
I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately) attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” (See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .)
--Mike
On 28.08.2011 23:47, Mike Godwin wrote:
Theo writes:
Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US.
of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly different.
This is interesting because what has been pointed out it's that the chapters are insecure and they are risky.
This is incomprehensible for chapters that receive an audit every year (audit done by an external company).
I would say that in this case what is insecure is not the chapter, which is absolutely complaint with the local law, but it's insecure and unreliable the system of control applied by WMF.
The chapters must take care of the local law, and this is sufficient and valid to drive a local fundraising.
If the chapters are really independent and they are linked to WMF only with some agreements, I don't understand why we must speak about the US law for an European chapter.
The WMF applies the US law to all of their affairs and can monitor and audit the relation with the chapters, but further these relations, the US law stops its validity.
I agree that the German model is not valid for all chapters, and this happens for a lot of questions, one important question is that the WM DE manage different quantity of donations and that WM DE has chosen a different organization of the voluntary service.
As to evaluate the maturity of a chapter we cannot compare it with WM DE, at the same time we cannot compare the reliability of one chapter applying a law in force in another country.
Ilario
Hi Mike
I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not an international one based in another country.
I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, "WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules", so is a German, French or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party.
I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of charitable funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in "Global south"). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving them time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started, doesn't address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money from all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now, but in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be given freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address most of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund collection (it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through a grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time.
Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we stick to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to develop what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there is no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues.
Theo
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Theo writes:
Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think
accountability
standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally
responsible
than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I
assure
you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US.
I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are "more transparent and fiscally responsible" than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements.
So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that it's not a question of whose rules are "better," whose motives are better, who is more trustworthy, etc. I believe it's appropriate for everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly different.
This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules.
I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately) attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” (See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .)
--Mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mike
I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not an international one based in another country.
I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, "WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules", so is a German, French or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party.
I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of charitable funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in "Global south"). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving them time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started, doesn't address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money from all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now, but in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be given freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address most of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund collection (it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through a grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time.
Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we stick to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to develop what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there is no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues.
Theo
The whole idea of requiring non-US chapters to abide by US law is a strawman. No one has suggested, anywhere, that chapters need to follow U.S. law. What has been suggested, by the letter and by other comments, is that the WMF must follow US law, including in how it works with international organisations and donations that flow to them through the WMF.
Additionally, the WMF has self-imposed obligations beyond the law. In order to meet both its legal and other obligations, the WMF needs to be satisfied that funds are being managed and spent appropriately. This requires a WMF "one size fits all" general policy; WM DE, WM FR, WM CH etc. may be so sophisticated that assurances and disclosures to the WMF are unnecessary, but this can't be said for all chapters or chapters not yet established.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mike
I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in
comparison
is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not
an
international one based in another country.
I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, "WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules", so is a German,
French
or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when
they
will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones
which
doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party.
I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of charitable funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in "Global south"). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving them time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started, doesn't address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money
from
all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now, but in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be given freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address
most
of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund
collection
(it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through
a
grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time.
Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we stick to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to
develop
what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there
is
no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues.
Theo
The whole idea of requiring non-US chapters to abide by US law is a strawman. No one has suggested, anywhere, that chapters need to follow U.S. law. What has been suggested, by the letter and by other comments, is that the WMF must follow US law, including in how it works with international organisations and donations that flow to them through the WMF.
Please read points 4 and 5.[1] Let me quote "This agreement is subject to the laws of the United States of America and the State of California, without regard to conflict of law rules", point 4 lays out the venue to be San Francisco County, California for any litigation between the parties.
Additionally, the WMF has self-imposed obligations beyond the law. In order to meet both its legal and other obligations, the WMF needs to be satisfied that funds are being managed and spent appropriately. This requires a WMF "one size fits all" general policy; WM DE, WM FR, WM CH etc. may be so sophisticated that assurances and disclosures to the WMF are unnecessary, but this can't be said for all chapters or chapters not yet established.
You are giving undue weight when you say "self-imposed obligations beyond the law" but that is a matter of opinion. Actually I never argued that "sophisticated" chapters don't require assurance and disclosure, they do, and most of them do comply. There are however no requirements set forth by WMF on what to comply on. There are 35+ chapters in total, only about 10 or so have participated in fundraiser, this ability was rolled out to more chapters, it still doesn't cover even half of them. I do believe that there are local laws not permitting them from joining or their own choice or infrastructure, either way, there is a development cycle that most chapters go through before they join fundraising. This would prevent maturation and effectively, put the current conditions in stasis.
Theo
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011/Chapters/Fundraising_Agreeme...
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mike
I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not an international one based in another country.
I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, "WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules", so is a German, French or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party.
I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of charitable funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in "Global south"). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving them time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started, doesn't address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money from all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now, but in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be given freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address most of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund collection (it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through a grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time.
Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we stick to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to develop what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there is no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues.
Theo
The whole idea of requiring non-US chapters to abide by US law is a strawman. No one has suggested, anywhere, that chapters need to follow U.S. law. What has been suggested, by the letter and by other comments, is that the WMF must follow US law, including in how it works with international organisations and donations that flow to them through the WMF.
You're strawman is alive.
If the chapters are funded by the WMF, non-US chapters need to abide by US law.
If all of the fundraising money goes to the WMF, who then distributes it to chapters via grants, all chapters must comply with the US regulations regarding use of money by a 501(c)(3) charity, and any additional constraints that the WMF puts on these grants in order to minimise its own risks and simplify its own compliance checking.
By doing this, the WMF is taking on more risk, rather than less. And it is taking on more work, as it will need to ensure that all chapters expenditure from these grants is compliant with US regulations.
There are several chapters whose existing program includes activities that are acceptable under their own laws, but will not be able to be funded by WMF because of the US regulations.
-- John Vandenberg
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:15 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
You're strawman is alive.
If the chapters are funded by the WMF, non-US chapters need to abide by US law.
If all of the fundraising money goes to the WMF, who then distributes it to chapters via grants, all chapters must comply with the US regulations regarding use of money by a 501(c)(3) charity, and any additional constraints that the WMF puts on these grants in order to minimise its own risks and simplify its own compliance checking.
By doing this, the WMF is taking on more risk, rather than less. And it is taking on more work, as it will need to ensure that all chapters expenditure from these grants is compliant with US regulations.
There are several chapters whose existing program includes activities that are acceptable under their own laws, but will not be able to be funded by WMF because of the US regulations.
-- John Vandenberg
Which activities are these?
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Which activities are these?
Copyright and internet law lobbying.
--vvv
On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Which activities are these?
Copyright and internet law lobbying.
This is incorrect. The foundation can engage in lobbying under US regulations if it wishes. Restrictions on lobbying by nonprofits are a limitation in degree, not a prohibition. Lobbying simply cannot be too significant a portion of the nonprofit's activities. If a nonprofit does engage in lobbying, the IRS has various tests that can be applied to determine if its tax exemption is jeopardized.
The reason for the popular misconception is that most nonprofits avoid lobbying altogether out of an abundance of caution. What the foundation actually cannot do is contribute to political candidates or support partisan activities, those are categorically prohibited.
--Michael Snow
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Which activities are these?
Copyright and internet law lobbying.
This is incorrect.
Michael,
Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement?
John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism laws and trade bans (unless a court has ruled that... etc). This puts imho chapters in an awkward position - being forced to follow laws they cannot reasonably know about unless they hire expensive expertise.
It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise.
Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve.
The exact reason for this seems to be vague to me. I really do hope the board will step forth and makes clear what their reasoning was and is - and doesn't hide behind staff (board members who already did so are being appreciated, but I'm still missing important voices). Is the reason really transparency? Is it about transferring money? Because that is important, but (sometimes easily) fixable. Or is the reasoning you don't like the projects the chapters work on? Because *then* we should have a discussion about that, and not hide behind non-reasons.
Lodewijk
2011/8/29 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Which activities are these?
Copyright and internet law lobbying.
This is incorrect.
Michael,
Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement?
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:55, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism laws and trade bans (unless a court has ruled that... etc). This puts imho chapters in an awkward position - being forced to follow laws they cannot reasonably know about unless they hire expensive expertise.
It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise.
Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve.
The exact reason for this seems to be vague to me. I really do hope the board will step forth and makes clear what their reasoning was and is - and doesn't hide behind staff (board members who already did so are being appreciated, but I'm still missing important voices). Is the reason really transparency? Is it about transferring money? Because that is important, but (sometimes easily) fixable. Or is the reasoning you don't like the projects the chapters work on? Because *then* we should have a discussion about that, and not hide behind non-reasons.
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.
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.
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.
On 29 August 2011 11:51, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Several chapter representatives already consider WMF's grant programme dysfunctional. The centralisation plan requires the infrastructure to support it, and an assumption of reliability (which is a much stronger requirement than assuming good faith) on those expected to live substantially off grants assigned by the mechanism.
But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
- d.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the central planning is economically successful.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the central planning is economically successful.
Thanks to David Richfield, I've realized that this sentence requires explanation. So here it is:
Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article "sparrow" leads to "passer" and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology.
Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized economy.
The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said "Sparrows are guilty for everything!" After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China abandoned centralized economy.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the central planning is economically successful.
Thanks to David Richfield, I've realized that this sentence requires explanation. So here it is:
Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article "sparrow" leads to "passer" and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology.
Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized economy.
The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said "Sparrows are guilty for everything!" After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China abandoned centralized economy.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
Not that I want to carry this diversion too far, but sparrows are normally seed eaters.
Ray
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:03, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article "sparrow" leads to "passer" and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology.
Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized economy.
The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said "Sparrows are guilty for everything!" After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China abandoned centralized economy.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
Not that I want to carry this diversion too far, but sparrows are normally seed eaters.
Actually, found article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
Ok, but is WMF an economic institution?
Are chapters branches of WMF?
The notable successes should be in no profit organizations.
Ilario
2011/8/30 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
Ok, but is WMF an economic institution?
As a "neutral" observer (i.e. not a member of any chapter) I can honestly say it's beginning to act as one.
Are chapters branches of WMF?
Apparently they will become just that from what I understand from this thread
The notable successes should be in no profit organizations.
I think David made an ironic reference to communism here :)
The thing is, central planning works well for small-size entities. But is the WMF still a "small size entity"? They say they are, cos' their budget is so tiny etc., etc., but I think you can't expand worldwide and still call yourself small. It just doesn't make sense.
Strainu
On 30 August 2011 10:11, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
Ok, but is WMF an economic institution?
I was hoping to make a more general analogy.
How about: Nupedia (centralised) versus Wikipedia?
Are chapters branches of WMF?
The plan to move them to grants makes them effectively into such branches, as does (from the reports in this thread) the language of the new agreements.
Centralisation is bad, stupid, wrong and will cripple the effectiveness of the movement. What we do can't possibly work that way.
- d.
On 08/29/11 3:51 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
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.
I'm afraid that there is a lot there they haven't thought through. I would have no problems with an outreach programme aimed at Cuba, but the US masters might see that differently.
Matters of processing capabilities would be the WMF's problems. If it gets caught up in its own bureaucracy chapters as a whole should develop ways to work around that. Probably too, there needs to be a a collective of some sort that looks after chapter interests. Although it may not bind the current chapter board representatives, responsibility to the chapters should be made clear to the future ones.
Ray
On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism laws and trade bans (unless a court has ruled that... etc). This puts imho chapters in an awkward position - being forced to follow laws they cannot reasonably know about unless they hire expensive expertise.
It's the essence of imperialism. It is also conceivable that such a clause could be invalid in some countries. Certainly chapters faced with such a clause will need independent legal advice within their own countries. In many ways the presence of different laws in some countries should be used to our an advantage. This also fails to address the consequences of a chapter's refusal to abide by a US law that was not directly specified in the agreement.
It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise.
How can they stop chapters from fundraising? They can certainly stop chapters from participating in the WMF's fundraising campaign, but they will still have no control over a chapter's own fundraising programmes.
Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve.
In these circumstances hoping that something will be interpreted differently is not good enough.
The exact reason for this seems to be vague to me. I really do hope the board will step forth and makes clear what their reasoning was and is - and doesn't hide behind staff (board members who already did so are being appreciated, but I'm still missing important voices). Is the reason really transparency? Is it about transferring money? Because that is important, but (sometimes easily) fixable. Or is the reasoning you don't like the projects the chapters work on? Because *then* we should have a discussion about that, and not hide behind non-reasons.
I agree. The directors need to be more pro-active with their points of view. They need to be trying for a negotiated settlement. They need to recognize that the people most concerned with this turn of events are ones who have been consistent strong volunteer supporters of Wikimedia for many years.
Ray
2011/8/30 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I
don't
know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise.
How can they stop chapters from fundraising? They can certainly stop chapters from participating in the WMF's fundraising campaign, but they will still have no control over a chapter's own fundraising programmes.
I have heard this argument too often now, so let me finally reply to it. Perhaps I should rephrase my statement to "not allowing good faith chapters to fundraise". Because that is basically what is happening - a chapter that has the best with the movement in mind, will not try to compete with the Wikimedia Foundation by fundraising on its own. I have never heard of any international organization which had two organizations (national and world wide) fundraising at the same time in the same country. And why would not-online fundraising suddenly be OK if the main reasons of the WMF are transparency and not following the WMF strategy closely enough? Why would it be so different? Because at the same time, chapters would still be asking donors to support those goals Wikipedia stands for: the sum of all knowledge available for every human being. The message doesn't change, the accountability doesn't suddenly improve and the performed activities with the money don't change. The only thing that is different is that it is less visible and that the fundraising agreement doesn't forbid it.
Lodewijk
On 30 August 2011 10:44, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
2011/8/30 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I
don't
know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of
the
board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise.
How can they stop chapters from fundraising? They can certainly stop chapters from participating in the WMF's fundraising campaign, but they will still have no control over a chapter's own fundraising programmes.
I have heard this argument too often now, so let me finally reply to it. Perhaps I should rephrase my statement to "not allowing good faith chapters to fundraise". Because that is basically what is happening - a chapter that has the best with the movement in mind, will not try to compete with the Wikimedia Foundation by fundraising on its own. I have never heard of any international organization which had two organizations (national and world wide) fundraising at the same time in the same country. And why would not-online fundraising suddenly be OK if the main reasons of the WMF are transparency and not following the WMF strategy closely enough? Why would it be so different? Because at the same time, chapters would still be asking donors to support those goals Wikipedia stands for: the sum of all knowledge available for every human being. The message doesn't change, the accountability doesn't suddenly improve and the performed activities with the money don't change. The only thing that is different is that it is less visible and that the fundraising agreement doesn't forbid it.
For the record, one of the examples used as an international charitable organization with multiple local chapters, Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders)...does indeed run both international and national fundraising drives at the same time. My inbox contains recent requests for donations from both my national chapter and the international organization, dated within days of each other. And I have a choice as to whether to donate to the international campaign or the national one, although I do so at different websites, and only get a tax credit for donations made to the local chapter. This 40-year-old internationally recognized organization has only 25 recognized national chapters, which have needed to meet rigorous standards to obtain and retain their status.
It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters.
Risker/Anne
Hi Anne,
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters.
Just for clarification: did you actually look for these agreements or are you just assuming they aren't available publicly?
The standard template for the agreement is published here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia...
There are some small modifications for individual chapters but the general principles apply through all of them.
Best regards,
Sebastian Moleski President Wikimedia Deutschland
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Sebastian Moleski info@sebmol.me wrote:
Hi Anne,
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions
of
the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters.
Just for clarification: did you actually look for these agreements or are you just assuming they aren't available publicly?
The standard template for the agreement is published here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia...
There are some small modifications for individual chapters but the general principles apply through all of them.
Best regards,
Sebastian Moleski President Wikimedia Deutschland
She was probably referring to the grant agreement, which is not public.
Nathan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Sebastian Moleski info@sebmol.me wrote:
Just for clarification: did you actually look for these agreements or are you just assuming they aren't available publicly?
The standard template for the agreement is published here:
http://wikimedia.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundatio...
There are some small modifications for individual chapters but the general principles apply through all of them.
She was probably referring to the grant agreement, which is not public.
Is there any reason it's not public? Not really asking you (Nathan) directly, but asking the list, I suppose.
MZMcBride
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
..
Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is *not* publicly available, and there are many references to "current" agreements without links to the version that particular chapter signed or authorized, I'd say it's still pretty hard for those who aren't actively involved in the administration of chapters to really know what is going on. The chapters agreement itself doesn't contain several of the points that are so controversial in this thread, for example.
It is also pretty hard for people actively involved in the administration of chapters to know what is going on, and why.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:17 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Nathan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Sebastian Moleski info@sebmol.me wrote:
Just for clarification: did you actually look for these agreements or are you just assuming they aren't available publicly?
The standard template for the agreement is published here:
http://wikimedia.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundatio...
There are some small modifications for individual chapters but the general principles apply through all of them.
She was probably referring to the grant agreement, which is not public.
Is there any reason it's not public? Not really asking you (Nathan) directly, but asking the list, I suppose.
It is a draft. A few problems were communicated privately nine days ago from WMAU, and from other chapters around the same time.
I would like an ETA from the WMF on a public version for comment.
On 30 August 2011 19:35, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
..
Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is *not* publicly available, and there are many references to "current" agreements without links to the version that particular chapter signed or authorized, I'd say it's still pretty hard for those who aren't actively involved in the administration of chapters to really know what is going
on.
The chapters agreement itself doesn't contain several of the points that
are
so controversial in this thread, for example.
It is also pretty hard for people actively involved in the administration of chapters to know what is going on, and why.
<snip>
Thanks for that comment, John. While I probably don't entirely share your own view (or that of many others) about the entire chapter/fundraising issue, I can certainly understand and sympathise with all of the people from chapters who are trying to figure out their next steps here. It must feel a little like walking on quicksand.
Risker/Anne
On 08/30/11 4:35 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
It is a draft. A few problems were communicated privately nine days ago from WMAU, and from other chapters around the same time.
I would like an ETA from the WMF on a public version for comment.
This would help.
Ray
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters.
Hi Risker,
The chapter agreement should be public. There is a version of it at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia..., which might be slightly out of sync with a version on an internal wiki; most chapters sign the exact same agreement ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_agreements).
The fundraising agreement that the WMF now seems to back out of should also be public: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_agreement.
The proposed grant agreement is currently on an internal wiki and not public.
Best regards, Bence
On 30 August 2011 11:09, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions
of
the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters.
Hi Risker,
The chapter agreement should be public. There is a version of it at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia... , which might be slightly out of sync with a version on an internal wiki; most chapters sign the exact same agreement ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_agreements).
The fundraising agreement that the WMF now seems to back out of should also be public: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_agreement.
The proposed grant agreement is currently on an internal wiki and not public.
Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is *not* publicly available, and there are many references to "current" agreements without links to the version that particular chapter signed or authorized, I'd say it's still pretty hard for those who aren't actively involved in the administration of chapters to really know what is going on. The chapters agreement itself doesn't contain several of the points that are so controversial in this thread, for example.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve.
The board decided on some criteria and asked that the concerns "need to be substantially addressed prior to the start of the 2011 fundraiser". To be very clear here, since there has been some confusion on that front: The board did decide on the letter and not on any interpretation of it - it was hard enough to come to a version of this letter to which every board member could agree. The implementation is up to the staff. It's their call.
We did raise the bar for chapters to participate in the fundraiser as payment processors. However, IMO the board's guidance provides enough flexibility to let more chapters than just WMDE participate in 2011. But again, the board didn't make any decision about individual chapters, neither in favor of any chapter nor against. Of course we had some conversations about the possible impact of our decision, but too many things were unclear at the time to tell for sure which chapters could participate in 2011. And even today I can't tell, since there are ongoing conversations between some chapters and WMF.
The exact reason for this seems to be vague to me. I really do hope the board will step forth and makes clear what their reasoning was and is - and doesn't hide behind staff (board members who already did so are being appreciated, but I'm still missing important voices). Is the reason really transparency? Is it about transferring money? Because that is important, but (sometimes easily) fixable.
There are many reasons why the old model was not good - and I think all of them are layed out in the letter. I will not try to re-formulate them - because I will certainly fail to come up with a version that is less vague while still representing the board's consensus. I myself would have dificulties to single out one exact reason. Transparency is certainly part of it, as are money transfer issues, or the legal framework we're operating in. I really don't want to blame this on the chapters alone. We all failed to implement a solid fundraising model that provides a "level of financial controls over donor funds" that is appropriate for a movement of our size and complexity.
Or is the reasoning you don't like the projects the chapters work on? Because *then* we should have a discussion about that, and not hide behind non-reasons.
I really do hope and I will do everything I can, that the current trouble will not lead to a situation where chapters stop doing any of the great projects they're doing. For me, this diverse and innovative culture is what makes Wikimedia so awesome.
Arne
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Arne Klempert klempert.lists@gmail.com wrote:
... We did raise the bar for chapters to participate in the fundraiser as payment processors. However, IMO the board's guidance provides enough flexibility to let more chapters than just WMDE participate in 2011.
flexibility? Arne, do you agree that all signed fundraising agreements should be honoured by the WMF?
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Arne Klempert klempert.lists@gmail.com wrote:
We did raise the bar for chapters to participate in the fundraiser as payment processors. However, IMO the board's guidance provides enough flexibility to let more chapters than just WMDE participate in 2011. But again, the board didn't make any decision about individual chapters, neither in favor of any chapter nor against. Of course we had some conversations about the possible impact of our decision, but too many things were unclear at the time to tell for sure which chapters could participate in 2011. And even today I can't tell, since there are ongoing conversations between some chapters and WMF.
For your information.
Some chapters are a little bit confused because what has been proposed is only the grant agreement and nothing else.
I asked if the proposal of grant agreement was negotiable and the answer has been "no"!
It means that there was no opportunity for the chapters to discuss and to solve some issues.
My chapter, for example, can match most of all point listed in the letter and we were disappointed that it has been considered "not conform" without any discussion.
The problem was that the documentation was published in our website and not in meta or in other WMF's web sites, but this is a minor issue and not a "blocking" problem.
You understand that if the letter says that some chapters can be admitted if they match some points and after someone says that no chapters can be admitted, this is more than an interpretation. This a policy completely different.
Honestly a "temporary" period to give to chapters the possibility to adequate their infrastructure to the new requests would have been more appreciated.
Ilario
On 31 August 2011 09:34, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I asked if the proposal of grant agreement was negotiable and the answer has been "no"!
The talk page of the grant agreement on internal-wiki would seem to disagree with you. It is full of people pointing out problems or room for improvement and Barry saying "Good point!" and making the appropriate changes.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2011 09:34, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I asked if the proposal of grant agreement was negotiable and the answer has been "no"!
The talk page of the grant agreement on internal-wiki would seem to disagree with you. It is full of people pointing out problems or room for improvement and Barry saying "Good point!" and making the appropriate changes.
I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant agreement/fundraising agreement.
Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion.
Ilario
On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant agreement/fundraising agreement.
Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion.
Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain terms that the WMF is not going to enter into any more fundraising agreements for the upcoming fundraiser, so your experience is consistent with that.
You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter into another fundraising agreement with you.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant agreement/fundraising agreement.
Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further
discussion.
Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain terms that the WMF is not going to enter into any more fundraising agreements for the upcoming fundraiser, so your experience is consistent with that.
You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter into another fundraising agreement with you.
More stuff discussed on Internal-l only, I suppose.
On 31 August 2011 22:20, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant agreement/fundraising agreement.
Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further
discussion.
Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain terms that the WMF is not going to enter into any more fundraising agreements for the upcoming fundraiser, so your experience is consistent with that.
You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter into another fundraising agreement with you.
More stuff discussed on Internal-l only, I suppose.
I don't understand. I can't remember which list Sue's statement was made on, but it's no secret. The tracking chart I referred to is on meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tracking_Progress_for_2011_chapters_fundraise...
There has been plenty of discussion on this subject on internal-l, but nothing of significance is being kept from the wider community.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant agreement/fundraising agreement.
Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion.
Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain terms that the WMF is not going to enter into any more fundraising agreements for the upcoming fundraiser, so your experience is consistent with that.
You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter into another fundraising agreement with you.
No, no WM IT, a chapter all green or yellow, but what is the advantage to say the name of the chapter?
The question is that the letter has generated a big modification and a big change.
Now the question is managed with private negotiations.
I don't think that the solution will be a neutral solution.
To know if a chapter is or not is complaint, it is important to have a framework.
This framework defines the guidelines for a chapter and assure the transparency.
This framework will assure that an audit will be a "real" audit (neutral and impartial).
This framework will assure the transparency.
At the moment a system of parameters to decide if a chapter can participate in the general fundraising it's not well defined. These parameters are decided case by case, country by country and in general with a specific negotiation.
The letter of the board has defined a first schema of a framework (to take part in a fundraising a chapter (any chapter) must have A, B, C, D). The aim of this letter is acceptable and it's in a good way.
Probably it would have been more acceptable if there was fixed a deadline to adapt the local situation to this letter.
The interpretation of this letter is becoming disruptive and is applying a different logic and a different evaluation for all chapters, basically a good letter is generating worst results.
I can understand that the board must not take care about the "executive" matters, but if the member of the board see that the principles of their guidelines are misunderstood or that someone is changing the principles, the board should explicit these principles in a good way and correct the interpretation.
The question will be more conflictual if the interpretation of this letter is very different from what the chapters have understood and what the "executive" team would propose.
Basically this letter is generating a not neutral, impartial and conflictual system. I don't know if the board is proud of this.
Ilario
On 1 September 2011 09:45, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter into another fundraising agreement with you.
No, no WM IT, a chapter all green or yellow, but what is the advantage to say the name of the chapter?
Ok, I've looked you up. You mean WMCH. My apologies for forgetting which chapter you are from!
The question is that the letter has generated a big modification and a big change.
True.
Now the question is managed with private negotiations.
True. Since every chapter's situation is different, that can't really be helped.
I don't think that the solution will be a neutral solution.
What does "neutral" mean in this context?
To know if a chapter is or not is complaint, it is important to have a framework.
This framework defines the guidelines for a chapter and assure the transparency.
This framework will assure that an audit will be a "real" audit (neutral and impartial).
This framework will assure the transparency.
At the moment a system of parameters to decide if a chapter can participate in the general fundraising it's not well defined. These parameters are decided case by case, country by country and in general with a specific negotiation.
The letter of the board has defined a first schema of a framework (to take part in a fundraising a chapter (any chapter) must have A, B, C, D). The aim of this letter is acceptable and it's in a good way.
I don't think we want something too rigid. It's sensible to consider each chapter on its own merits rather than try and fit everyone into a box. The board's letter sets out some general principles for that individual consideration to be based on, which seems like a good approach to me.
Probably it would have been more acceptable if there was fixed a deadline to adapt the local situation to this letter.
The timing has been appallingly bad, yes. For the WMF to continue along the path it was on even when it was pretty sure it was going in the wrong direction was ridiculous. We should have been having these discussions months ago, so the chapters would have had time to try and meet whatever requirements were being set out.
The interpretation of this letter is becoming disruptive and is applying a different logic and a different evaluation for all chapters, basically a good letter is generating worst results.
I can understand that the board must not take care about the "executive" matters, but if the member of the board see that the principles of their guidelines are misunderstood or that someone is changing the principles, the board should explicit these principles in a good way and correct the interpretation.
The question will be more conflictual if the interpretation of this letter is very different from what the chapters have understood and what the "executive" team would propose.
I agree, the staff don't seem to be interpreting the letter correctly. I know Ting has let them know they haven't got it quite right, although I'm not aware of any actual clarification being forthcoming.
Basically this letter is generating a not neutral, impartial and conflictual system. I don't know if the board is proud of this.
As above, I don't know what "neutral" means in this context. It was never going to be impartial. The WMF board are obliged to act in the interests of the WMF. That's never going to change. Ideally, the interests of the WMF are the same as the interests of everyone else involved in the movement, but unfortunately that's not always the case. The conflict and hostility it has generated is a big problem and the board could have done a much better job at avoiding that.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Which activities are these?
Copyright and internet law lobbying.
This is incorrect.
Michael,
Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement?
-- John Vandenberg
I hadn't seen this document before, but have now. I retract my comment regarding the chapters being required to comply with U.S. law. I'm not sure what the full justification for the language in the agreement is, and I'd be interested to hear it explained by an expert.
~Nathan
On 8/28/2011 10:04 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snowwikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Which activities are these?
Copyright and internet law lobbying.
This is incorrect.
Michael,
Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement?
I don't believe I have seen it, no. I gather from the other comments it contains language about grant recipients complying with US law. Without a more thorough review, I'm not in a position to say how necessary such language is or how extensively it would be interpreted with respect to a chapter's overall activities. However, it doesn't change my point that nonprofits can in fact engage in lobbying under US law.
--Michael Snow
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, "WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules", so is a German, French or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country.
I believe this is precisely in agreement with what I posted.
The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party.
That was my point. If this were on a Facebook page, we'd have to include in the relationships info that "It's complicated."
--Mike
On 08/28/11 2:47 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
Theo writes:
Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US.
I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are "more transparent and fiscally responsible" than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements.
Yes, and my impression is that there is even less international agreement on this than there is on copyright. I agree that comparing rules to see which country has better rules will get us nowhere.
A key feature considered by the Chapters Committee in recognizing chapters is: "The chapter must have a legal structure/corporation that is legally independant from the Wikimedia Foundation." This either means something or it doesn't. So while the WMF is clearly a U.S. nonprofit, so too are the chapters comparably so in their own countries.
What may be important here is the nature of the fundraising agreement. We need to ask such questions as whether the WMF collects money from foreign territories on its own behalf or as an agent of the relevant national chapter.
So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that it's not a question of whose rules are "better," whose motives are better, who is more trustworthy, etc. I believe it's appropriate for everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly different.
Perhaps the faulty premise that has led to this latest round of debates is that a single one-size-fits-all model could be developed. The easy way out can end up being the most difficult. My understanding is that the people who attended the Vienna meeting were disappointed that it was not called for the purpose of negotiation.
This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules.
Yes, but the chapters (other than those in the US) are not.
I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately) attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” (See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .)
The funding problem is a simple matter of relativity.
Rayu
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org