[Foundation-l] Chapters

[Thomas Dalton]

On 1 September 2011 09:45, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?

Ok, I've looked you up. You mean WMCH. My apologies for forgetting
which chapter you are from!

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

True.

> Now the question is managed with private negotiations.

True. Since every chapter's situation is different, that can't really be helped.

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

What does "neutral" mean in this context?

> 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.

I don't think we want something too rigid. It's sensible to consider
each chapter on its own merits rather than try and fit everyone into a
box. The board's letter sets out some general principles for that
individual consideration to be based on, which seems like a good
approach to me.

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

The timing has been appallingly bad, yes. For the WMF to continue
along the path it was on even when it was pretty sure it was going in
the wrong direction was ridiculous. We should have been having these
discussions months ago, so the chapters would have had time to try and
meet whatever requirements were being set out.

> 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.

I agree, the staff don't seem to be interpreting the letter correctly.
I know Ting has let them know they haven't got it quite right,
although I'm not aware of any actual clarification being forthcoming.

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

As above, I don't know what "neutral" means in this context. It was
never going to be impartial. The WMF board are obliged to act in the
interests of the WMF. That's never going to change. Ideally, the
interests of the WMF are the same as the interests of everyone else
involved in the movement, but unfortunately that's not always the
case. The conflict and hostility it has generated is a big problem and
the board could have done a much better job at avoiding that.