[Foundation-l] Chapters

[rupert THURNER]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 16:46, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard <notafishz at gmail.com>:
>> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If the question is one of "minimum standards of accountability" the
>> >> WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it
>> >> requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within
>> >> particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws
>> >> of their respective jurisdictions.  These are more important than the
>> >> FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals.  There is no doubt
>> >> that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash
>> >> will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better
>> >> to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than
>> >> to play the role of a distrustful parent.
>> >
>> > +1
>> > I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
>> > what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
>> > locally. (Take a look at the international pages of oxfam, wwf,
>> > médecins sans frontières, etc.). Who are we to know better than these
>> > people who've been around for like... ever? Surely there is a reason
>> > for them doing this the way they do?
>>
>> +1.
>> in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and
>> year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users,
>> we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that
>> means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000
>> donation.
>>
>> any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing
>> to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we
>> probably do not want to walk.
>>
>>
> See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about
> chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last
> time around.  In the "real" world, charities determine what their objectives
> are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific
> dollar objective in mind.  What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with
> the equivalent of half a million US dollars?  And was that "target"
> established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out on
> the back of an envelope?  It's certainly not the way that any other charity
> I know of develops its targets.  Now, last year was the first time this
> process was tried, so nobody was really quite sure how to manage things;

what theoretical brainwash is this? we are working since 2005 towards
local landing pages, every year little bit more, and we finally got
there 2010, including the option to donate to the chapter or the
foundation. which proved to be successful. the targets were of course
not done via scientific research, but on the back of an envelope. we
tried asking the people passing by to give to wikipedia. and they were
prepared to give one CHF without thinking, but not 10. so we know
quite sure that the donation potential for switzerland might max out
at 2 mio CHF / year - if we reach a penetration of 50% of the working
population. and of course, have good progress.

what we do with the money? have more money than we can deal with? you
are joking! did you at any time in your whole life have difficulties
to spend money, or did somebody closed your bank account because it is
too full?  we wire a big chunk of the money to the foundation where it
is 0.X % of their income. we wire it despite it feels like spitting
into the ocean.

the main challenge is then to _not_ spend it, or in other words, not
waste it to not go in prison. the board decides on the details and
proposes the way to go, the general assembly (all members) decide on
the strategy, and the bylaws state the goals. our board is legally
responsible towards the swiss law and its easy to just walk to the
other side of the street and sue in case of money waste or spending
not within the bylaws. to see an example how the spending is
scrutinized, subscribe to the german mailing list. this by far
superiour cost control than what is existing at the wikimedia
foundation and, i would say 99.9 % of the other "standard ngo's".

we are slow in spending, true. but the donors, at least in
switzerland, prefer slow spending to waste. do you know how many
employees wikimedia switzerland has? ZERO. we cannot tell if it will
make sense that it stays like this, but we are proud that we are
better and have less waste than other charities :) we do not need to
stand under bridges and in train stations, paying contractors 100% of
the first year, 75% of the second years donation and so on so they
hunt donators which then make a long year contract to pay us
regularly. we do not need to write spam mails to get donators. we do
not need to do all this "usual ngo" thing. we  "only" need good work,
and spend wisely. and i guess many people have fun with it, and are
proud of it. at least i am. btw, how many new articles did you create
on wikipedia the last couple of months? none? i created 4, at least!
did you visit a museum to negotiate some glam projects? no? i visited
at least two. did you work on the internationalization project (aka
global south)? no? i helped organizing at least one meeting and one
project. did i get money? no!

over and out,

rupert.
-----------------------
http://wikimedia.ch/Donate - just so you may look the foundation is
there, _without_ an additional click.k