Hi,
apologies for the lengthy answer.
2014-11-23 8:27 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
I have a few questions, observations. When I read the arguments for cutting the request of the German chapter, I get the impression that the Germans are punished.
Can you please elaborate on where you get this feeling from, Gerard?
2014-11-23 8:27 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
I also find no considerations to the consequences of NOT providing the requested funding.
Possible scenarios have been discussed, the final decision is, of course, in the hands of the upcoming WMDE's board. I think that the recommendation given highlights some strong and some week points to work on (and I think this is the point of the recommendation).
2014-11-23 8:27 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
When I read about the Dutch request, they are praised for being
prudent and careful planners but they are punished for not being actively involved in fundraising.
On one hand the need of diversifying the sources of funding is for sure something that the FDC want to push organisations on, I want this to be as clear as possible on this point. I can say that all FDC members are aware that this message has not been given clearly in the past and that fundraising is a difficult endeavor where capacity needs to be built and result can not expected to be immediate. The main point is that "diversification of funds and resources mitigate risks and maintain sustainability, and also allow organizations to build meaningful local partnerships and shared ownership around goals."
On the other hand we considered the fact that WMNL has a significant amount of reserves, while some reserves are definitely a good thing, we have to consider the fact that this money are, in some sense, frozen in their use. We can not ignore this fact. Also remember the the medium size of IEG is 7500 $[1] (but I recalled an even lower figure).
The WIkimedia Foundation deliberately excluded the chapters from the fundraising efforts.
As Dariusz noted, the so-called "payment processing" from the websites does not necessarily equate fundraising /tout court/.
Enough comments have been made about this recently; it is obvious to many that the WMF seems not to care too much about what funds are raised outside the USA.
I disagree on this, but I may add that if this would be the case it would be one more reason to develop a local fundraising strategy.
The process of handing out gifts makes beggars of the chapters.
I disagree. Basically *all* the non-profit organisations in the world raise funds in a number of ways, including applying for grants to different organisations (at a local, national and international level), and I can assure you (through personal experience, i.e. projects done with Wikimedia Italia) that for doing such a thing you are required to present a (project) proposal, to prepare reports and basically do all the steps that are part of the FDC process.
They have to comply with the vagaries of what committee members think at a given time.
This is a risk associated with any fundraising activity other then having a very large number of direct small donors. I can also point out that you have to face the vagaries of the Board, too ("6. We should ensure the diversification of funding for our movement, and not rely solely on movement resources through our annual fundraiser.")[2].
In the recommendation for Wikimedia Foundation in May, the FDC asked for the start of the new strategic process. The Wikimedia Foundation as an organisation needs its own strategy, I do not know at the moment if this will be called "the Wikimedia movement strategy" or not. I do not know at the moment if this two strategies are better being one or not. The point is, whatever the Wikimedia Foundation's strategy will be this will affect the whole movement with a magnitude much greater than the strategy of every single other Wikimedia entity or group.
One point of this is: make sure that WMF strategy is sensible for what you as a chapter want to do, or make sure that we have a movement strategy we agree on. The other point is: "WMF strategy will affect all of us, whether we like it or not" (cit. Delphine, I hope you don't mind me quoting this in public), so participate in the WMF strategy process when the time comes.
In my opinion by making chapters second class citizens, the WMF will remain USA and English centred. That does not help our goal of "sharing in the sum of all available knowledge".
I don't think chapters are second class citizens and I think that all committee members are aware of the fact that "sharing in the sum of all available knowledge" goes beyond English (for 7 out of 9 members English is not the native/primary language) and goes beyond Wikipedia, this even goes beyond online since many of the very cool projects the chapters do need a significant offline activity.
PS there are more chapters where I am not happy about the granting of gifts either.
(as in?)
2014-11-23 9:34 GMT+01:00 Thomas Goldammer thogol@gmail.com:
But you wanted a comment on the FDC. The only thing I can say is: To base such a decision on things like "the FDC feels" and "to appear" and "it is likely" (all quotes from their text within a single paragraph) makes me think that they get very poor information and instead of trying to get it richer (for example by talking to *all* relevant people), they make a very poor decision out of it.
Thomas, I think that what you are pointing out is just a matter of prose.
2014-11-23 10:37 GMT+01:00 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
They are active in the wmf, want to run for a committee in which process they might be deemed too opinionated or they fear that it might harm the future applications of their chapter or project.
I am not sure I understand this sentence, Lodewijk, it sounds like retaliation to me, and there is no such thing. If there is no feedback, this process is pointless.
C [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grantmaking_Impact_Assessment,_2013-... [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-04-18#Guidance_for_the_FDC