[Foundation-l] Chapters

[Ray Saintonge]

On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan 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.

If we are talking about the money raised in the country itself how is 
that "devolving".  That seems too much like the financial model used by 
the business agents for ladies of the night. The issue has nothing to do 
with whether Foundation funds are being misspent. Having the Foundation 
as "a professional operation" is of absolutely no interest to me.. 
Professional operations tend to develop different priorities from 
amateur ones.
> 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.
>
> [1]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWlqeHp5ak5uWnc&authkey=CKb59_wD&hl=en_US#gid=0

That link shows 67.75% as being from the USA.
>> 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.

I have no problem with this. Chapters should be made to understand the 
consequences of swallowing poison pills.
>
> 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.
>
>
Due diligence requires management to be wary of what they "have no 
reason to expect". For a person who hasn't seen grant request outlines 
you do a lot of speculation about what they don't contain.  To the 
extent that chapters require grants, it is wholly reasonable that they 
establish the need for those grants, and be accountable for them when 
they receive them. Beyond the startup stage chapters should strive to 
have independent core funding. so as not to require WMF grants to fund 
core operations.  That's an important part of being responsible and 
accountable; national laws too play a big role in establishing 
accountability and transparency.  It would be irresponsible for a 
chapter board member to base his policy stands on the suggested 
interpretation of one WMF board member.

Ray