[Foundation-l] Chapters

[Ilario Valdelli]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant
>> agreement/fundraising agreement.
>>
>> Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion.
>
> Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain
> terms that the WMF is not going to enter into any more fundraising
> agreements for the upcoming fundraiser, so your experience is
> consistent with that.
>
> You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal
> issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to
> the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter
> into another fundraising agreement with you.
>

No, no WM IT, a chapter all green or yellow, but what is the advantage
to say the name of the chapter?

The question is that the letter has generated a big modification and a
big change.

Now the question is managed with private negotiations.

I don't think that the solution will be a neutral solution.

To know if a chapter is or not is complaint, it is important to have a
framework.

This framework defines the guidelines for a chapter and assure the transparency.

This framework will assure that an audit will be a "real" audit
(neutral and impartial).

This framework will assure the transparency.

At the moment a system of parameters to decide if a chapter can
participate in the general fundraising it's not well defined. These
parameters are decided case by case, country by country and in general
with a specific negotiation.

The letter of the board has defined a first schema of a framework (to
take part in a fundraising a chapter (any chapter) must have A, B, C,
D). The aim of this letter is acceptable and it's in a good way.

Probably it would have been more acceptable if there was fixed a
deadline to adapt the local situation to this letter.

The interpretation of this letter is becoming disruptive and is
applying a different logic and a different evaluation for all
chapters, basically a good letter is generating worst results.

I can understand that the board must not take care about the
"executive" matters, but if the member of the board see that the
principles of their guidelines are misunderstood or that someone is
changing the principles, the board should explicit these principles in
a good way and correct the interpretation.

The question will be more conflictual if the interpretation of this
letter is very different from what the chapters have understood and
what the "executive" team would propose.

Basically this letter is generating a not neutral, impartial and
conflictual system. I don't know if the board is proud of this.

Ilario