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@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@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@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@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@gmail.com
napisał(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@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@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@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:
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> Wikimedia-l@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:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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