Thanks for this Ting. I won't offer an opinion but this is certainly food
for thought and will no doubt generate discussion. When you say "Who
remembers CHIP?", what are you referring to? I don't remember anything
called CHIP but I was not very active in movement organisations before 2
years ago.
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 10 April 2014 12:23, Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Hello dear all,
now the second mail
Funding of international operating organizations is a very complicated
issue. The Wikimedia movement is not the first and not the last one to face
this topic. There are as many models on how this can be handled as there
are international organizations.
Currently the Wikimedia movement adapted a strong centralized model with
the Foundation as the only organization that does the fund distribution. In
the official text it is said that the Foundation only does "payment
processing" and the FDC does the fund distribution, I think this is
misguiding. The part of money that the FDC distribute is at the end defined
by the annual financial plan of the Foundation, and not by FDC itself, in
this way FDC doesn't really have financial sovereignty and is only
distributing a very small part of the whole movement funding.
There is a "long" way for us to come to this model, and yes, every critics
is correct who says that I am personally responsible for this model. The
model was introduced and adapted during my chair's personship on the
Foundation board and I defended this model during this time. I remember
lively the Wikimania in Haifa and in Washington. But it doesn't mean that I
cannot rethink this decision. Indeed, today I think that it is mea culpa,
mea maxima culpa.
As I said earlier there is a history how we got into this result. At the
beginning, when WMDE was the only partner organization that did fund
raising beside of WMF there was an agreement between WMDE and WMF that the
amount of money raised inside of Germany (independent on who raised it)
will be split 50:50 between the two organizations. In year 2009 this model
was used to all organizations who wanted to do fund raising.
I won't speak for anyone else, I just want to speak for myself. I was
worried by the end of 2009. The reason why I was worried was the funding of
WMF, not that of the chapters, especially in the light of at that time very
vividly discussed WMUSA. The model we used for 2009 cut off the Foundation
from half of the funds from Europe outside of Germany, especially from UK.
In the light of higher funding result this was not very much a problem for
the WMF, because the biggest part of the funding came from US. But in case
that there would be a WMUSA and it would participate in fund raising in the
same way it would mean that the WMF will lose almost half of its funding
(given the case, that the fund raising target will not be raised), and I
want to remind the readers that at that time the WMF budget in total was
still quite low. That was my worry. Let me emphasize that it was my private
thought. As I said I won't speak for anyone else. And I didn't talk with
anyone in this respect. I didn't hear anyone speak out a similar concern so
I take I was alone with this worry. There were no talk that I am aware of,
official or unofficial, that was related to this concern. Even though at
that time WMDE signaled to the Foundation that they were willing to change
the 50:50 splitting in benefit to the WMF, it seemed to me still very
worrisome.
In the end, some other issues came up. I think all concerns that were
publicly made in this context are valid. And as I said in the other mail I
think that at the end it is good that we have set up those standards and
all organizations inside of the movement are profitable from these
standards.
But I think that the end result of the whole process is a very radical
centralized one. And as this it is not compatible to the value that we
declared for ourselves: That our movement should be decentralized.
Concrete I find a few points especially problematic with the approach we
currently have:
*
The WMF is currently the only body that is empowered and is able to
distribute the funds
*
The grants are limited in one year's term and doesn't really help
long term development and strategy
*
Almost all grants are conditioned and doesn't give the partner
organization the necessary freedom and financial sovereignty that a
healthy independent organization needs
*
The lack of a from all partner organizations agreed strategy
I won't say that we won't get into these issues if we have a different
funding model, but I think that the current radically centralized funding
model makes these problems worse and almost impossible to resolve.
Even though the FDC and the GAC are run by volunteers, this does not make
them the ones that really distribute the funds of the movement. The part of
the funds that the FDC and the GAC can distribute, is only a very small
part of the entire fund raising result. And the amount of this part is at
first defined by the WMF annual planning. Even though by the annual
planning the feedback of the FDC and the GAC is taken into account the
final decision about the portion and amount of this part lies entirely in
the measure of the WMF. So, in the end only the WMF has the sovereignty
upon the funding.
By the nature of how our movement is organized all organizations inside of
the movement are independent organizations. And since we don't have a
charter that is agreed by all partners, and don't have a movement strategic
planning that is agreed by all partners, every organization stands for
themselves. From the WMF perspective of view the partner organizations are
business partners, and from this point of view the calculation is easy:
What do I pay them and what would I get back from my investment. Under this
condition it is just following the logic of business that the WMF want to,
or more precise, is obliged to keep a short line on the funding it is
giving out to other independent organizations.
The instrument of tightly monitored measurable business targets is today a
common sense in the business world, and is more and more applied in the
nonprofit world. It is taught in the preschools of the business schools and
is deeply deeply implanted into the consciousness of any manager. If you
miss your target for one quarter you are under pressure, if you miss it for
two quarters there will be a serious talk with your boss, if you miss your
target for three quarters you are fired. This is maybe a bit exaggerated
but basically a rule for all high and middle management people. A company
boss that fancy his idea of gather the energy that usually go lost by
braking and use this energy as an auxiliary drive, and pursue his queer
idea for years without real return, while at the same time people in his
industry branch think the model is "an interesting curiosity", such
examples are now a day very rare.
For our movement partners I believe the annual driven, short termed and
always conditioned funding is a problem. It doesn't allow the young
organizations to have a long term plan for their development. The
traditional funding model like what the WMF is using by FDC is more for
mature organizations. Young organizations need more funding model like what
the venture capitalists do. The lack of common movement wide strategic
planning only makes the situation worse. What venture capitalists need is a
vision, before they are willing to fund a new enterprise.
I come back again and again to this point because I really think it is a
crucial point for the movement. There is no common, from all partners
agreed idea about where every body is going, what should / can they
contribute, what is their duty and what is their contribution. There are
some vague ideas but there is no common understanding. At this point I want
to come back to a response from Cristian Connsoni on my last post. Cristian
wrote: "It is worth adding that following the law and jurisprudence in
Italy (but mind that IANAL) the mere possession of servers can be enough
for an Italian judge to consider you responsible of the contents. That's
why Wikimedia Italia does not want any server." I know where you come from,
but I miss what you think where you can be. You come from the current
situation, but do you make any thought where you want to be and how you can
get there? I think this is the question that all organizations, each for
themselves should ask and answer, and then all should put their answers
together and see what everyone had thought for themselves and if all the
answers can be put together to make a larger mosaic that makes sense.
Please let me troll a bit at this place (I was not allowed to in the past
years and now I feel the joy of a teenager who is allowed to stay at home
for the first time of his life while his parents are taking a weekend off,
and please apologize an old man share his infantile feeling in a meant to
be serious long mail). I read once (in an article about searching for alien
life) that one of the characteristics of life is to change the environment
in a way that makes it more comfortable for himself. So you say the
environment is hostile to you. Then answer for yourself what would be the
ideal environment and what could you do to make the environment more
comfortable for you and what resource do you need to do so. Just as the
start point for your strategic planning. Or the other way around: think
big, think about your friends and partners and what can you do with them?
Together? What become the idea of an EU association? Who remembers CHIP?
Yes WMIT in person of Illario took part on that meeting in the youth hostel
in Brussels. Yeah, when I wrote about the European server in my last mail,
I deliberately didn't put it in a country, but said EU. And I still think
an EU association (with UK and CH and Amical part of it) makes sense in
very many points of view.
Yes I know it is difficult to be at one point and think about where I want
myself to be. When I was a member of the WMF board I really felt difficult
to do this, because there were always current problems that we were facing
and I had never had time, energy, save imagination to think something else.
It was after I gave up my chair's person position and really after I quit
the board that I have time and most important of all ease to think about
the whole picture. And it is difficult to do this kind of thinking because
between the where I am and where I want to be there is a blank gap. And it
is difficult to imagine how I can bridge that gap, especially if I don't
have the resource to bridge that gap.
Long term developmental funding is exactly for bridging such gaps. It is
in some sense a complimentary system: You need a vision, and you need the
funding to approach that vision. Both are necessary. Currently, in our
movement, for most partner organizations, and for our movement as a whole,
non of them are in place.
And the current model of our movement funding doesn't help to create any
of them, and prohibits the creation of both of them. Looking back today I
believe that the change of the funding model in 2010 in Haifa actually
killed any realistic chance for a WMUSA, and maybe some others.
There are a lot of possible models how international movements,
organizations and associations do funding. I think the current WMF model is
one extreme. The other extreme is what the United Nations use. If we have
kept the model we used in 2009 we would end up into a similar one. The
funding of the United Nations is also the biggest weakness of the
organization. In certain sense the United Nations is entirely dependent on
the good will and the payment willingness of its member countries, and
especially the rich countries. The organization is weak and bias because
its foundation is weak and bias. And it doesn't help even if the payment is
regulated in the UN charter and all member countries signed the charter.
Personally I still find this a terrible model. With such a model we just
turn the game around and makes the WMF totally dependent on the partner
organizations. And it is a terrible model because it doesn't distribute the
funds according to need but according to geolocation.
So I come back again and again to one point, which is for me the central
piece of the movement, and which is lacking very very hurtfully: We need a
common understanding about the movement roles and strategic planning, we
need a charter so that every partner knows what his role inside of the
movement is, what is expected from him and what can he expect from the
partners in the movement, what is everyone contributing to the whole
movement, and according to this we can find out what everyone really needs.
There are a few guidelines for the WMF fund raising:
*
WMF wants to stay independent, it does not want to be dependent on a
few big grants
*
By acquiring grants, the WMF wants to keep its financial
sovereignty, it always tries to negotiate unconditioned grants and
actually broke some negotiations when it was clear that the grants
won't be unconditioned.
*
In the past years the financial planning of the WMF is always driven
by the 2010 strategic planning and its result. The start point was
always: what is the projection in the strategic planning? What are
the targets defined in it? What do we need to meet those targets.
The presentations of Sue to the board on annual planning always
start with a recap of the strategic planning and where we are.
I think what the WMF claims for itself as guidelines, it should also grant
to its partner organizations.
So in my opinion our funding model should be based on this planning and
agreement and charter and needs to give every movement partner the resource
and financial sovereignty that they realistically need to fulfill their
role. (I put here "realistically need" because naturally I can imagine for
every organization a lot of things they can need but there is naturally
also a constraint on what is possible and what every organization is able
to handle. I take most of us, if not all, learned at first how to manage 10
bucks of pocket money before "a few" years later we learned how to manage
our income. And non of us is empowered to give out millions from the
cradle. I take this is common sense. But want to be more precise for this
special quibbling loving mailing list *stretches his tongue*)
I see this more like a round table than what is currently the FDC. The
round table starts in the third phase of every movement strategic planning:
When the movement goals are set and the implementation planning starts,
that's the point where the round table starts to work, it is an integral
part of the strategic planning. The round table defines a rough portion of
what every partner is empowered to get during the period of the
implementation of the strategic planning according to the roles,
developmental plan and contribution the organizations planned to accomplish
during this period.
The FDC, or what a similarly composed committee would be, what is kind of
a standing committee of the round table, will do the annual fine tuning
according to the performance and achievement of every organization. It
should also do the controlling and adjustment during the implementation
phase. As this it needs to be really independent and also needs to have the
teeth to enforce punishment when a partner organization violates the
charter or is malfunctioning.
I won't claim that this is an easy approach. Discussion and negotiation is
never easy, is actually unnerving. It is not easier in the Wikimedia
movement than in any other associations. It always looks like it is easier
to have one organization dictating the whole movement. But I think this is
the wrong approach. The current status of the movement is that with one
exception the partner organizations stay weak and underdeveloped. The WMF
tried to fill in the roles that the partner organizations actually should
fill in but noticed very soon that it cannot fill that role and retreated.
In the end those works stay undone, even in the rich countries which by
itself theoretically have enough resource to do it.
I think in the end the current model is devastating for the development of
the movement as a whole in the long term.
Greetings
Ting
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>