Most of the points you make are unrelated to funding, but have more to do
with movement priorities. I also think there are many things to be improved
there. I feel with you that chapters often have a stronger connection to
the community and what is required to help the community do their job. The
toolserver was indeed a strong example.
But that is not the point of discussion - we were talking about external
funding an sich. I think it is good if affiliates get their core funded
through the WMF - but I disagree that seeking external partners must always
stifle innovation. I think it could actually spark innovation. I see too
many organizations that become reliant on a single source of funding, and
become lazy in innovations that way.
So where possible, I definitely do cheer upon chapters that manage to find
external funding for some of their projects. And yes, there are limitations
to this - it should not interfere with our creativity. I will definitely do
my part to support such efforts in the Netherlands. Sometimes external
funding can allow us to run projects that might not easily be approved by
our committees, because it is 'too expensive'.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by
design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the
chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly
straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund
raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding. However,
the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they do
not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT
considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the
move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will
consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not
good.
My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based
on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is
denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This
denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several
chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to "the
community" that wants to own them and determine for them. When the
Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in hardware
and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the
involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers
chapters in this.
In discussion we hear about the "community" about committees but there is
no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not
healthy for us as a movement.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
wrote:
I don't quite agree.
Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your
impact
- it forces you to think beyond the usual lines
of thought. It makes you
think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In
the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which
helps
with answering the constantly changing
requirements for reporting to the
Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the
constant changes also cost time).
But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort than
you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the
annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a
whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects
sometimes external funding is more effective.
Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are
positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for
grants
where the positive sides outweigh the negative
sides, also locally, and
when the balance goes the other way discuss again.
At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider it
unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an
affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for whatever
reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they
already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong.
Best,
Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this
reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
> Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising
on
> > the chapters.
> >
> > However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is
> > available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a
> > chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a
projected
> > they applied for to the FDC, but they
just didn't. Some chapters
have a
> > possibility to get office space for
free or at a reduced price. Etc.
It
> > would just make sense to think if the
movement's resources sparingly.
> >
> > If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's
totally
fine.
Best
Dj
26 lis 2014 09:42 "rupert THURNER" <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>
napisaĆ(a):
> While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the
policies
> > they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of
the
> > > challenge we are facing.
> > >
> > > What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want
to
> > dump
> > > other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all
its
> > > professionalism tried and found
unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner
> startet
> > > there were four income channels. First, Business development, which
> never
> > > gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious
> > > conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of
the
2006
> > fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from
the
> dead
aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved
expensive
> > compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then
> resulted
> > in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face
this
> > > today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money
from
> the
> > > poor, aka fundraising banners on the website.
> > >
> > > The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the
website,
> and
> > > with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is
an
> >
inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the
> inefficiencies
> > we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard.
> >
> > Rupert
> > On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
>
wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have
people
> > > working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a
job
> or
> > > are
> > > > they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it
> takes
> > > two
> > > > because the skills involved are different.
> > > >
> > > > I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money.
> > However,
> > > > in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund
raising
> and
> > > not
> > > > doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized.
> > > Currently
> > > > it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in
one
> pot
> > > is
> > > > foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of
the
> > > process
> > > > altogether. Several of these make more money than they can
> comfortably
> > > > handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons,
> > > >
> > > > What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not
what
it
> > is
> > > > supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It
would
be
> > much
> > > better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was
changed
> > in
> > > > such a way that the process became more equal, A process where
the
> > > chapters
> > > > can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for
instance
> have
> > > > developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable
in
> >
> countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart
and
> > > > educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India?
(I
> know
> > > > reasons why not but they are not the point).
> > > >
> > > > We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not
apply
> > > equally
> > > > or divide on equal terms.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > > NB Wikidata is underfunded
> > > >
> > > > On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten <
> > > mail(a)anderswennersten.se>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As Nathan I see no contradiction.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in
their
> > > project
> > > > > to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to
get
> that
> > > > > funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing
> organisations
> > > > (but
> > > > > not for WMF to "get" that money for general use)
> > > > >
> > > > > But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the
> > camera
> > > > > that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that
has
> been
> > > > > uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed
> almost a
> > > > > million times and believe our small donors would approve of
that
use
> > > >
> > > > Anders
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45:
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt <
liamwyatt(a)gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical,
> > however I
> > > >>> believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I
believe
> the
> > > FDC
> > > >>> is working on the best advice it has available, and I know
that I
> > have
> > > >>> not
> > > >>> read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter
finances.
> > > But, I
> > > > >>> would like to know if there is a policy position from
the WMF
> Board
> > > of
> > > > >>> Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in
this
> area.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be
> > > > contradictory?
> > > > >> If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first
principle
> >
applies
> > > >> to
> > > >> funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised
by
> > > > >> individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in
conflict.
> > >>
_______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>