[Foundation-l] Chapters

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 August 2011 18:29, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9 August 2011 08:18, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>> This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do
> with
> >>> chapters?
>
> >> That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from
> >> their perspective, so recentralising fundraising.
>
> > However it was the WMF that created that particular model of
> > decentralisation  in the first place.
>
>
> This is begging the question: it presumes ownership. It also assumes
> that destroying that decentralisation is symmetrical with having first
> allowed and encouraged it, which is not in any way the case.
>
> The real problem with the present approach is - *even if* it's a
> correct thing for the trustees to do (once we're actually clear on
> what it is they're doing) - is:
>
> * Number of chapters people who've gone "hey, great idea!": 0.
> * Number of chapters people who've gone "you're pissing us about so
> badly we almost can't work with you": quite a lot.
>
> Hi! It's a little hard to generalize, but this was not actually my
impression of the general tone at Wikimania, which was pretty different from
the list discussions. There, I had a few folks tell me that it was good to
try to crack down on problems that had occurred as a result of the
[past/current] fundraising model, and others said they agreed with the
intent [of improving financial controls] but thought our process sucked --
which I personally agree with; as I told several people, we felt a bit stuck
between a rock & a hard place in wanting to get this out quickly under the
circumstances. Several chapters are unhappy over logistics and timing, which
is understandable; a few feel their autonomy is being taken away, but many
are just as glad to not bother with fundraising.

Note that there are two questions raised in our letter -- one is the issue
of good stewardship of money coming in through WMF-trademarked websites,
which is an issue the Foundation Board does feel responsibility and
ownership for; and second is the question of chapter funding and budgeting,
which is a good deal more controversial and is certainly not a resolved
issue -- we have iterated funding models for many years. (NB for those who
aren't participating in current chapter fundraising, this year's agreement
is different from previous ones -- it requires a chapter budget to be
submitted to the WMF, with direct donation receipt up to that amount.)

I'd say the issues of chapter autonomy that Birgitte raised in her eloquent
mail, and as raised in other threads, do go well beyond the fairly technical
point of "whose bank account does the money enter when donors give through
Wikipedia?" As others have noted in this thread, "fundraising" encompasses a
great deal more than that, which the WMF certainly recognizes. The question
"how should chapters get funded, and how do they or anyone else decide how
much money they need?" is more general and important, but questions of
autonomy even go beyond that. It is my belief, from conversations with all
kinds of Wikimedians, that the fundamental question of "what should a
chapter be?" doesn't currently have consensus or agreement among all of the
stakeholders, including the various chapters themselves -- and it is this
point that will especially need deep and ongoing conversation as we continue
to figure out what we're all doing.

Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The Board
agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles. To my mind
"decentralization is important" raises a whole bunch of other important
questions: is decentralization more important than efficiency as a working
principle? How do we also implement decentralized dispute resolution when
two entities disagree? How do we make sure people who don't consider
themselves aligned with any particular body, including readers and donors,
are represented in decision making? Who allots funds; who makes sure funds
keep coming in? Who is responsible for keeping wikipedia.org up and alive?
How do we align the WMF's specific legal responsibilities with those of a
decentralized movement? (These and many more questions are also part of the
movement roles project discussions, btw; see meta).

One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that there
are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and haven't applied
for many grants to date, and thus have little to no money to support program
work. Though mostly outside the scope of the Board's letter, this is for
instance one part of our model that I would like to see change --
Wikimedians everywhere should have better access to resources to get things
done. On this specific point, I do disagree with Birgitte -- I think a
well-developed grants program [and it's true we're not there yet, but want
to be soon] could actually help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain
money needed for program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to
develop the (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly
fundraise with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns.

The point raised by Anthere and Delphine elsewhere that developing
fundraising capabilities helps chapters mature is worth noting and certainly
historically true, but is that the best course of affairs, or are there
other paths of development that would be better? I do agree wholeheartedly
that the WMF should invest in helping everyone get better at fundraising and
management (and PR, and other essential skills...)

-- phoebe, speaking for herself not the board or staff