[Foundation-l] Fundraising & Networking updates

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Jan 8, 2008 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> It is actually more likely, for an immature organization, that its
> direction will be distorted by a grant, than through an unrestricted
> major donation, because in the former case, the Board & Staff of the
> grant-giving organization may have very specific ideas of what they
> want you to do, and if you don't do exactly that, you won't get the
> money -- in the latter case, you are talking about a much softer
> relationship, where the most important thing is to create
> opportunities for participation and feedback.

In the case of a grant the expectations and obligations are known
upfront, often before you even apply for a grant.

In cases of very large "unrestricted" donations there is usually an
implied debit of some form. For example, a donor may expect to be able
to make a board appointment, or to suggest business partners.   These
things are not usually requested explicitly, but the obligations are
still created.

Failure to meet these obligations can result in serious future
difficulties raising funds from those parties or their associates,
which is a potentially debilitating situation when the few largest
connected contributors account for a substantial percentage of the
operating budget of an organization and when there are not substantial
reserves, as is the case for Wikimedia.

To be unaware that these sort of expectations are created in such
situations would be a sign of exceptional foolishness and would
signify a very risky situation.  Risks can only be abated when they
are acknowledged and understood.

Influence alone is not necessarily harmful, but influence without
transparency is another matter entirely.



As a past contributor I expect Wikimedia to be reasonably transparent
and completely honest about the level of transparency provided.  It is
my experience that in recent times Wikimedia has done poorly by these
metrics.

Wikimedia is far more defendant on the generosity of unaffiliated
parties than many other originations. What does Wikimedia do?  It
collects resources in order to provide infrastructure for other people
to provide resources.  So while there are always opportunities to
learn from others, Wikimedia should expect to be held to higher
standards.  In the past I felt that Wikimedia met those standards in
areas which mattered.

It is with some amusement that I have observed transparency, honesty,
and professionalism used to justify actions which are, to my greatest
ability to determine, neither transparent, honest, nor professional.

In particular Wikimedia appears to be suffering from a massive
collapse in it's ability to communicate.  This was especially apparent
to me on the fundrasing committee mailing list, but I think it is
apparent to anyone who has been involved deeply in this organization.
 Communication between the foundation and the contributors has never
been great, but I previously considered communication between involved
parties to be fairly reasonable.

I can't recall a recent conversation about Wikimedia, with staff,
board members, deeply involved volunteers, or casual contributors
alike where someone wasn't surprised by something going on.

Based on current trends I do not see a resolution to these
communication issues unless someone discovers a way to move all
contributors to San Francisco. Since the current proposed post-move
foundation expenditures are already far in excess of the proven
sustainable level of public support I expect that moving thousands of
contributors to one of the most expensive cities in the world is
non-viable. ;)

I hope that the causes of my recent disappointment are transitory
growing pains,  because I would be deeply saddened to see such a
worthwhile mission impeded by institutional malfunction.