[Foundation-l] Chapters

[Theo10011]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011 <de10011 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Risker
> >
> > I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The
> > Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a
> > community member from english wikipedia, do you feel it has been
> accountable
> > to you or spent it on worthwhile activities for the community? the
> reality
> > is WMF raised several times more money than all chapters combined, this
> > year's target is 30% or so more than previous year's. Do you think
> > concentration of all that money with one organization and one entity is a
> > smart idea with a global movement like ours?
> >
>
> In what way is devolving money to many organizations in many countries
> an *improvement* for accountability, particularly when the standards
> for transparency and fiscal responsibility are minimal or
> non-existent? I don't know about Risker, but I don't personally
> believe the Foundation's money is being misspent. It helps that I know
> the Foundation is a professional operation, and that it's spending and
> priorities are disclosed.
>

I never said it was an improvement for accountability, accountability has no
relation to what I was asking. Devolving of money into many organizations in
many countries is happening and will continue to happen with the fundraising
or the grants system. Chapters will still receive the funding from a San
Francisco based non-profit in the grants system, rest assured that will not
change. What the current model changes is giving to the organization from
the same country and leaving it in charge of local activities, some may
offer tax-deductibility benefit, some may not. The idea is, since local
organizations know local needs better than a global one, they might be in a
better position to act. There are too numerous laws and restrictive tax
codes to point out why certain countries might have problems when the money
for all activities of an organization comes solely from a San Francisco
based Non-profit. The movement of money itself, back and
forth confounds this problem further.

Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability
standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible
than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure
you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US.

Then, the current strategic plan for the foundation, calls for an increased
focus on 'Global South'. As a 'Global South' resident I can assure you there
are restrictive laws about the movement of money from one country to a more
affluent one. Since the plan itself calls for attention and focus on these
areas, it might make sense to collect and spend money locally(?).

Lastly, I think what I am trying to argue for, is having multiple smaller
groups doing things independently and locally than one giant head
organization that pays the bills. You might think Foundation's money is not
being misspent, others might not. I am arguing for decentralization, more
independence for local groups. We can have more local GLAM activities and
more things like Wiki loves monument or even a better Toolserver. WMF is not
built to take on activities like those, or has tried to in my knowledge, in
the past.


>
> More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total
> fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapters in
> the fundraiser is not, in anyway, an alternative to concentrating
> money in the WMF.
>

That is what I meant when I said WMF collects several times more than all
chapters combined, let me add 'locally' if it helps. I also said, only a
handful of chapters were allowed to fundraise, an option which was being
planned to be offered to other chapters before it was taken away. You also
might want to look at the board letter and read the point about why global
south shouldn't get more of the proceeds than global north, since 80% is
from North America as you pointed out.


> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWlqeHp5ak5uWnc&authkey=CKb59_wD&hl=en_US#gid=0
>
> >
> > Its going to be the end of activities and projects like those, if chapter
> > independence to raise funds is taken away. I completely agreed with
> Birgitte
> > SB's take on the matter earlier.
> >
> > Do you want WMF to be the sole and only authority for what the entire
> > movement does? Every project, every little activity in their slice of the
> > world or their online community has to be individually approved and
> > sanctioned by WMF. It's taking away independence of these small groups in
> > deciding what's best for their own part of the world or community,
> somewhere
> > along the line this is getting conflated into issues of accountability
> that
> > no one really disagrees with, not the chapters themselves. the only
> solution
> > because of certain chapters mismanagement, is to make every chapter more
> or
> > less a branch office of WMF.
> >
> > Theo
> >
>
> First of all, the chapters can continue to fundraise how they like.
> There are other methods of fundraising, and many thousands of other
> non-profit groups that manage to fund themselves without the WMF
> drive. If your goal is chapter independence, then you should be
> encouraging chapters to engage in their own fundraising efforts. If
> they have no source of funding other than the Wikimedia Foundation
> annual fundraiser, then they are fully yoked to its continuing
> goodwill and approval.
>

Actually, most non-profits have local operations in a lot of country where
they fundraise locally, I believe Delphine pointed out oxfam, wwf,médecins
sans frontières on this thread earlier who have similar models. You might be
arguing against the nature of Non-profits here.


>
> Second, there is no reason to expect that every little expenditure
> will have to be approved by the WMF in advance. I haven't seen
> outlines for requesting grants from the Foundation... have you seen
> documents that suggest the requirements for receiving a grant will be
> particularly onerous? Perhaps a chapter will establish a budget,
> submit the budget to the WMF, and have the whole budget funded. That's
> more along the lines of what I remember Phoebe and others suggesting.
>

Actually, it does. Grants, by definition are amounts given to grantee after
approval from the grantor. Let me point you to the already existing grant
system, here are the outlines[1], please do look at the "Guidelines and
Criteria" along with "Evaluation and Approval" and "Reporting" sections.
Yes, chapters will establish a budget, submit it and then discuss every
aspect in length, for example here [2] and be at the discretion of WMF staff
in the end.

Let me point you to some rejected grants as well, in the past year.[3]

Theo

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants#Key_guidelines_and_criteria
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_AR/Professionalization
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants#Grant_applications_not_funded


>
> Nathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>