[Foundation-l] Chapters

[Kirill Lokshin]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:43 AM, <Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

> You are right that this decentralization doesn't neccessarily have to be
> anything like "chapters".  But chapters happened for whatever reason and
> no-one is trying to be rid of them. The validity of the argument that
> chapters aren't aboslutely needed, doesn't make it any better of an idea to
> keep them around and infantalize and insult them. Imagine how these events
> will sound as they  are be spread through all the people working in RC who
> might hear of them.  By the natural urge to fit it into a story and the
> unavoidable half-understanding of passing language barriers; it becomes a
> plank in the narrative of WMF as Imperialism.  And that is the sort of story
> that if built up completely will have a real negative effect on RC.
>

In other words, this could be harmful to the movement if spun in a
particular way?  There's nothing new there; just about anything the WMF does
_could_ be given a negative spin.  I don't think that this possibilityshould
in and of itself be a convincing reason to not do something.

Funding chapters by grants from WMF so that they all use the money in the
> same WMF approved way is a systematically bad idea in the same way sending
> shoes to Africa is a bad idea.  Redefining the chapters who participated in
> a joint fundraiser with WMF as WMF's "payment processors" is straight-up
> insulting.


Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters "participating" in
the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries?  The underlying
fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words --
is performed by WMF staff directly.  The chapters do provide some level of
administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as
easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost.  The only real
advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated
fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction;
and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what
extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average
donor.

A more typical arrangement would be that the WMF would give a chapter the
right to use WMF trademarks, and in return a portion of the funds raised by
the chapter would be funneled back to the WMF.  But what chapters seem to
want is for the WMF to sign over the trademarks they need to do their own
fundraising, and then simply hand over a portion of the WMF's own revenue on
top of that.  It's a convenient arrangement for the chapters involved, to be
sure, and apparently one that the WMF was not particularly unwilling to
follow; but there's nothing particularly "normal" or "fair" about it.


> Writing about ethical concerns while at same time being blind to anything
> that does not maximize donations is laughable.  The obvious solution to the
> stated concern that is being raised is returning to the split screen
> fundraiser landing page which has been ruled out for not maximizing
> donations. The seemingly underlying and unstated concern about wanting to
> make sure that WMF leads and maintains control of the movement is actually
> undesirable and should not be pursued.


I don't see the concern as either unstated or undesirable.  Why shouldn't
the WMF lead the movement?  Or, to put it another way, why should the WMF
cede its leadership role to an amorphous collective of chapters, which --
unlike the WMF -- has no clear leadership, may or may not enjoy a suitable
level of organizational maturity, and is subject to a hodgepodge of local
legal systems which may or may not be friendly to the Wikimedia mission?
 The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter -- has no inherent
right to lead the movement.  We may choose to _allow_ it to lead, of course
-- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate that it is worthy of such a
role, not for everyone else to prove that it isn't.

Kirill