When the WMF wants more funding, it can if it trusts its chapters. The current funding model has chapters rely totally on the vagaries of the funding committee. Legally they are distinct and fundamentally they may want to do things different for reasons of their own. Now they cannot or do not because of the additional stress involved.

different for reasons of their own. Now they cannot or do not because of the additional stress involved.

quite

I can also add that AFAIK the Foundation has never made the diversification of funds for chapters a hard rule. Rather, it encouraged organizations to seek alternative funding, when feasible. We have had historically cases of chapters that admitted they could relatively easily get external support, but just have preferred not to try to get it. All in all we should balance two things: (a) resources are finite. If we can easily get additional funding, especially in the Global North countries, that's great! We'll have more to do core work in the areas where it is not possible. (b) applying for external funding should not divert us from our main mission, and should not make chapters jump the loops of insane bureaucracy, irrational strain of effort, etc.

I believe we have been relatively successful so far. However, I agree that the Foundation perhaps is not using its full potential in engaging chapters in a dialogue how to effectively address the local supporters (both individuals and on an institutional level). We should use the extensive network of committed organizations to our advantage.

I have a couple of comments, mostly directed to WMF, about fundraising and governance matters: As a matter of good governance, I would not encourage WMF to be seeking large external partners who do solid due-diligence about their grantees until WMF demonstrates that it can complete an annual planning process that is aligned with the good practices already being demonstrated by affiliates and aligned with the expectations of the FDC. I feel that an external partner who conducted a thorough evaluation of WMF's current annual plan would find it to be mediocre at best and I question whether a large institutional partner would be willing to invest six-figure or seven-figure sums in WMF given the state of WMF's current annual plan. I am glad to see that WMF is in the process of addressing this shortcoming, and I hope for good outcomes this year. Another issue that WMF needs to address is the state of its board. The handling of the situation with respect to two board members (the removal of James for opaque reasons, Jimbo's unprofessional comments about the removal of James, the appointment of Arnnon, and the Board's apparent decision not to remove Arnnon even after learning of his role in illegal activities) demonstrates significant problems in the board, and if I had millions of dollars to give in grants I surely would not entrust those funds to the WMF until there is a major overhaul of the board. Also, if I was an affiliate, I would have a lot of questions about the wisdom of fundraising on behalf of WMF given the serious PR liability that WMF has become, and I tend to think that at this time affiliates would be wise to put a considerable distance between ourselves and WMF because of the PR and fundraising collateral damage that we could receive from problems at WMF. WMF needs to get its house in order. Speaking in my personal capacity only, Pine On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Sydney Poore &lt;sydney.poore(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: for encouraged easily we Annual institutional it the developing is a _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

The limiting resource for Wikipedia is not money, but Wikipedians. I could only with great difficulty imagine useful ways to spend the amount of money that we do receive (mostly, increased support for the participation of individual WPedians in the overall movement, and the provision of intellectual resources). That we rely on individual people involves them with us--I have known many people go from being readers to being donor and then to contributors of content. We need organizations to contribute also, and, similarly, what we need them for is to contribute content, but in this case, we are talking about contributing existing materials, not writing them. It is not asking them for money will see them being more involved; rather, asking them for actual intellectual resources which cost them nothing to donate --and which only they can donate--will lead to continuing involvement, as they see the use that people make of their contributions. Unlike money, there is no other source for this material. The most important contribution of WP is not the encyclopedia. The most important contribution is the demonstration of the role of ordinary individual involvement in activities that used to be done only by an elite, or by formal organizations--that activity without formal coordination but by cooperation can -- in at least some areas -- lead to results that not only equal but surpass what academic and publishing and other cultural bureaucracies can accomplish. The true benefit will come a people apply this to other aspects of their life. To the extent that this is the true benefit, everything that we need to do centrally detracts from our mission. That we depend only on small individual contributions, and that they come to us even with our minimal efforts, is our strength, not our weakness. On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com wrote: > Hoi, > You know, when the WMF is to be judged as an organisation, I would never > judge on a few incidents. I would judge it on its intrinsic value. > Personally and that is the highest level of commitment, personally I find > that we are doing a sterling job. Wikipedia is a top ten website in the > world. It runs it on an extremely low budget compared to other top ten > websites. This week a new WIkipedia is ready to become the next iteration > and as it is a rate occasion, it is a reason to celebrate. It is for the > talking heads to update their power points <grin> for me to make a power > point </grin>. > When people consider how well how well others do from our work. Do consider a well are > a clear winner. > Our fundraising is great. It makes us lots of money and there are lots of > worthwhile things we can do with it. It is all part of the same relatively > low budget. We could do more. We choose to focus on Wikipedia. That is a > mistake but ok. We could do better as a result and not spend more money. > When we make more money, when we operate an endowment fund, it makes us an CO2 > everywhere. It would show our responsibility now and for the future. > When we think that we have a PR disaster on our hand, do consider the > extend it is one of our own making.. Personally speaking I find the > continuous sniping a disgrace. So much time and effort is wasted because > shit happens. It does, get over it. Do better next time and the next time > is always more convoluted and impossible to achieve. Assume good faith, > expect that things go wrong, deal with it, clean up the mess and move on. > Do not continuously sing the refrain of what went wrong. > It truly makes us miserable. > Thanks, > GerardM > On 3 February 2016 at 18:38, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > I have a couple of comments, mostly directed to WMF, about fundraising > and > > governance matters: > > > As a matter of good governance, I would not encourage WMF to be seeking > > large external partners who do solid due-diligence about their grantees > > until WMF demonstrates that it can complete an annual planning process > that > > is aligned with the good practices already being demonstrated by > affiliates > > and aligned with the expectations of the FDC. I feel that an external > > partner who conducted a thorough evaluation of WMF's current annual plan for > > good outcomes this year. > > > Another issue that WMF needs to address is the state of its board. The > > handling of the situation with respect to two board members (the removal of behalf to > > think that at this time affiliates would be wise to put a considerable > > distance between ourselves and WMF because of the PR and fundraising > > collateral damage that we could receive from problems at WMF. > > > WMF needs to get its house in order. > > > Speaking in my personal capacity only, > > > Pine > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Sydney Poore &lt;sydney.poore(a)gmail.com&gt; > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak < darekj(a)alk.edu.pl > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quite the opposite. For several years now, the FDC recommendations and grant > by > > > > > > > > > > > > I can also add that AFAIK the Foundation has never made the > > > > diversification of funds for chapters a hard rule. Rather, it > > encouraged > > > > organizations to seek alternative funding, when feasible. We have had > > > > historically cases of chapters that admitted they could relatively > > easily > > > > get external support, but just have preferred not to try to get it. > > > > > > > All in all we should balance two things: (a) resources are finite. If areas > > > > where it is not possible. (b) applying for external funding should > not > > > > divert us from our main mission, and should not make chapters jump > the > > > > loops of insane bureaucracy, irrational strain of effort, etc. > > > > > > > > Speaking as a former member of the FDC and current member of Simple > > Annual > > > Plan grant committee, I agree with Dariusz but add that a good use of > > > external resources can add more value than just the funded dollar > amount. > > > > > Instead of speaking of "funding" we should substitute "resources". By > > > seeking out external resources, which is more than external grant > money, > > > the wikimedia affiliates can build much greater capacity in a > particular > > > region or topic area (GLAM or STEM or Healthcare.) > > > > > > > > > I believe we have been relatively successful so far. However, I agree > > > > that the Foundation perhaps is not using its full potential in > engaging > > > > chapters in a dialogue how to effectively address the local > supporters > > > > (both individuals and on an institutional level). We should use the > > > > extensive network of committed organizations to our advantage. > > > > > > > > It is key to the future of the wikimedia movement to identify > > institutional > > > partners (big and small) who can advance the wikimedia mission. > > > > > It is happening now with many affiliate organizations, and growing, but with > > the > > > wikimedia movement and the wikimedia movement is benefiting from > > > relationships with external partners. > > > > > This needs to be a joint dialogue between WMF and the affiliated > > > organizations including User Groups. I hope that people will join the > WMF > > > strategic planning discussions and include their thoughts about > > developing > > > external resources that can benefit the wikimedia movement. Also, this > > is a > > > topic for Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. > > > > > Warm regards, > > > Sydney Poore > > > User:FloNight > > > Wikipedia in Residence > > > at Cochrane > > > WikiWomen's User Group > > > Wiki Project Med Foundation User Group > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hoi, Spending and fundraising are two sides of the same coin. I remember that it was strongly suggested that money had to go through the WMF for all kinds of political reasons. At the time it was the Dutch chapter that received money. Long story short, after some animosity the WMF now has the whole field to itself. Given the animosity and lack of trust at the time I would not do any fundraising without an accompanying say so of the money spend. Liam why did you only react to some of the lines and not others?? Paying for a hole in the ground that will be invested 'wisely' but without any charm, any pointer why but a rainy day seems stupid. PS It rains a lot in the Netherlands. Thanks, GerardM