[Foundation-l] Fundraising & Networking updates

[Erik Moeller]

On 1/9/08, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> In the case of a grant the expectations and obligations are known
> upfront, often before you even apply for a grant.

It really depends on the organization you're working with. I've seen
one grant process fail because the grant-giving organization wanted to
shape very specifically the nature & scope of the project to fit some
internally predefined agenda. Other organizations only perform due
diligence on grants below a certain amount. In general, grants _do_
come with expectations and obligations, which means they have to be
managed, which means you need an organization that's capable of doing
that. Beyond some first baby steps, we aren't there yet.

> 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.

Of course you register a donor's expectations, and you deal with them
in a professional manner, taking risks & benefits into account.

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

On the issue of transparency in general:
- I don't feel that there's been significantly less or more sharing of
information over the last few months than over the last couple of
years. AFAICT, there's neither been a substantial improvement, nor a
remarkable decrease.
- As an organization grows & restructures, there is sometimes
confusion about who reports to whom, who is responsible for what, who
needs to know what, etc. That's unfortunate but normal -- in part
because people need to find their place & role in the organization.
- While I believe that information that doesn't cause harm should
generally be publicized, one should not underestimate the cost of
communication. Time we spend on replying to some long foundation-l or
internal-l thread is time we don't spend doing the actual core work of
the Foundation. Of course, one could account for some time being spent
on such explanations, and one should.

At the same time, I also feel that information flows should be
structured to privilege people who actually participate in doing
_work_. That is to say, I don't mind to spend some time at the end of
the day to explain to a person on a mailing list I've never met why X
is the case, or why Y doesn't work, but I'd much rather spend 2 hours
talking to someone who spends 2 hours _helping me_.

So, from my point of view, we need to spend our time building
structures where volunteers can actively participate in the kinds of
projects we describe, and those volunteers will then know things
before others do, because they have to, and because communicating
things to a general audience takes more time & bandwidth than
communicating them to the people who are actively involved in a given
project.

It's OK to have some structures that are primarily reactive in nature:
people writing more or less annoyed & hostile emails questioning the
premise of everything you do has always been par for the course at
Wikimedia. ;-) But more than anything, the Foundation needs structures
that help to actually get stuff done.

I'm preparing some thoughts & plans on this, but any feedback on the
subject of activating community volunteers for participation, rather
than mere reaction to announcements, would be helpful.

Best,
Erik