[Foundation-l] Chapters

[Robin McCain]

Perhaps we might reflect on all the mistakes made by far older global 
NPOs - the Catholic Church and all the younger proselytizing churches 
are good examples.The mission has always been the dissemination of 
knowledge (of a specific sort), so it has experiences that might be 
helpful - what not to do, etc.

They've always had wealthy and poor locales. A large part of their 
efforts have been devoted to raising money from the wealthy to fund 
programs for the poor. They all have had to learn how to meet the legal 
obligations of whichever states they are located and have evolved 
systems to manage their money - some of which work better than others.


On 8/12/2011 7:21 AM, foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow<wikipedia at frontier.com
>>> >  >wrote:
>>> >  >
>>>> >  >>  On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>>>>> >  >>  >  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?
>>>> >  >>  I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity of
>>>> >  >>  tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization should
>>>> >  >>  help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to maximize
>>>> >  >>  revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't
>>>> >  >>  mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to sacrifice
>>>> >  >>  a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other value we
>>>> >  >>  think is important like decentralization.
>>>>> >  >>  >  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.
>>>> >  >>  I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a
>>>> >  >>  "well-developed" grants program. In many contexts, as grants programs
>>>> >  >>  develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly
>>>> >  >>  complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, it
>>>> >  >>  may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we are
>>>> >  >>  trying to move away from.
>>>> >  >>
>>>> >  >>  --Michael Snow
>>>> >  >>
>>> >  >
>>> >  >Fair point. By "well-developed" I just meant "something that works well."
>>> >  >One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the
>> >  idea
>>> >  >of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see
>> >  the
>>> >  >expansion of the WMDE program, as well.
>>> >  >
>>> >  >-- phoebe
>>> >  >I can't help but point out that is begging the question. [1] It is a
>> >  logical fallacy to say in answer to concerns that a grants program won't
>> >  work well that you are supporting well-developed grants program (defined as
>> >  something that works well).  It is just wishful thinking.
>> >
>> >  BirgitteSB
>> >
>> >
>> >  [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
>> >
>> >
> Sorry, I didn't intend to beg the question. Maybe I misread Michael's
> comment. I thought he was saying that a high-overhead grants program, such
> as many granting organizations end up with after a few years, would not be
> helpful. My response is that we should strive to build a functional
> low-overhead grants program. Yes, that is "wishful thinking", since it's an
> aspirational goal, but it's also in response to concern over a hypothetical
> future... I think it's totally fair to think about what kind of criteria we
> would like to see in a grants program generally (e.g. low overhead, open to
> all, etc.), since the program will need to be expanded quite a bit if it
> covers funding many more chapters and groups. Now if people don't think it's
> *possible*  to build a low-overhead grants program, that's a fair point:)
>
> best,
> phoebe