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(a)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(a)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(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>
> > 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(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.w…
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>