Well, I would say that probably the chapters are looking for external funds not because WMF is suggesting to do it, but probably because it's too much hard to follow the interpretations of the FDC.
Every year that a chapter applies for a FDC grant is like to go to the sybil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumaean_Sibyl) because even if the plan has been adapted to the last strategies of WMF, it's difficult to define what will be the *new* interpretation of the FDC.
It's not a bad solution to find external funds, but it's critical when the percentage of this external funding is relatively large. Speaking about a trendy word: the impact in a chapter is substantial.
As soon the chapters will fund externally for a relevant percentage of their budget, it means that the main strategy of the chapters will follow what the donors (big or small donors) will ask. So the workload is not only to find finds but also to manage stakeholders.
Yes, this will reduce the risks... but the risks of the variability of the FDC answer!
Now we come back to the main question:
a) it's an usual answer that a no profit association that would fund their own organization may do a fundraising targeting on small donors, but it means that the initial funds will be spent to fund the next fundraising campaign, in general it is suggested that the first years are spent only to finance the next fundraising. In addition I would add that it's really stupid to be concurrent of WMF in the main fields where WMF collects its funds b) a second solution is to look for big sponsors and for charitable foundations, but it means a lot of time to acquire the reliance of these entities and in addition these foundations or donors will impose their own constraints, its' really difficult that they will open the wallet only because someone is named Wikimedia X c) there are also call for projets done by local governements but it means anyway a big workload to follow the selections and to find partners and so on
So I am not saying that it's worst to look for external funds but that: a) it cannot be done in few months (to be a serious external fundraising) b) it makes sense to do it if this will be the strategy for the following years because *any change costs*
Yes, there are a lot of opportunities and in my specific case I would say that Switzerland offers good opportunities also to fund projects outside Switzerland because the legal system in Switzerland is designed for *international* projects. The problem is to change the priorities and to spent the following months to look for funds.
Probably all members of the FDC are too young (as wikimedians) to remember that the principle of WMF two or three years ago was to focus the organization of the chapters in the community support and in the projects. This is a resume of what was said by the board of trusteee in wikimedia conference in Berlin in the 2012 about the request of chapters to be payment processors (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2012/Documentation/Day_...).
Personally I find the suggestions of the FDC in conflict with what was said two years ago.
The question is to define clearly a strategy for the following years because in any of these three cases a longtime strategy is required in order to find a good fundraising solution.
It means that next years the FDC *cannot* evaluate the work of the chapters with the current parameters and measures because it's not honest to ask for a re-arrangement of the priorities, and to ask that the chapters will have in charge the risks and the costs of this change and in addition that they have also to be evaluated with an outdated system of evaluation (in comparison with the current suggestions of the FDC).
I agree that the Global South may have some difficulties to raise funds locally, but I disagree that the evaluation of a project done in the Global South can have the same evaluation of a project done in the Global North which is financed with external funds.
Regards
On 26.11.2014 22:01, Risker wrote:
At the same time, although I believe that chapters (especially those with budgets in the FDC range) should at least be able to demonstrate that they've investigated opportunities, I also am aware that in many regions the opportunities might be very limited, or could require completion of highly complex documentation with only a small chance of success. (Anyone thinking that the FDC asks for a lot of documentation has never completed the paperwork for a typical research grant.) But chapters are the organizations best placed to research and analyse their own local fundraising opportunities, and to figure out which ones are worth pursuing from both a financial and programmatic point of view. Fundraising can, indeed, be expensive.
We do have to keep in mind that this is a big, global movement, the available financial resources are *not* unlimited (contrary to popular belief), and that there has to be some sort of evidence that the money being distributed in large grants is generating demonstrated results within the movement. The nature of those results will vary from grantee to grantee.
Risker/Anne