Hoi, When the WMF staff is only involved in advising local fundraising, then the WMF staff is considered superior. The actual situation is that the WMF would do well and expect superior local knowledge and use it for its fundraising. It should compensate the chapters for this. It would do well when chapters get a share of the locally raised funds. BECAUSE it is also a vehicle for raising awareness
The notion that fundraising is apart from how the relations are is very artificial and it results in poor understanding. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 22:29, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, external funding can come in many different forms. Ideally, a not for profit will develop strategic partnerships that will give them access to more volunteers, in kind services and good, and also financial contributions. Good alliances will spark innovation or provide opportunities that would not otherwise exist. We are already seeing this happen in many organizations but it is not always being documented and shared.
The FDC is asking the WMF staff to open a dialogue with the affiliated organization (chapters and thematic organizations) around the area of fundraising in order to learn more about the ways that they can be supported when they do local fundraising. There is much learning that can come from sharing among the different chapters.
Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
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: 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:
> > > 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.wi...
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