subject:"\[Foundation\-l\] Chapters"

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:55, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
 John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I
 understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives
 a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism
 laws and trade bans (unless a court has ruled that... etc). This puts imho
 chapters in an awkward position - being forced to follow laws they cannot
 reasonably know about unless they hire expensive expertise.

 It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't
 know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar
 requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the
 board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise.

 Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to
 hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter
 except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve.

 The exact reason for this seems to be vague to me. I really do hope the
 board will step forth and makes clear what their reasoning was and is - and
 doesn't hide behind staff (board members who already did so are being
 appreciated, but I'm still missing important voices). Is the reason really
 transparency? Is it about transferring money? Because that is important, but
 (sometimes easily) fixable. Or is the reasoning you don't like the projects
 the chapters work on? Because *then* we should have a discussion about that,
 and not hide behind non-reasons.

I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters
should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't
complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build
infrastructure for handling hundreds of applications and testing them
on anti-terrorism laws, that's up to it.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-29 Thread John Vandenberg

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
 ..

 I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters
 should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't
 complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build
 infrastructure for handling hundreds of applications and testing them
 on anti-terrorism laws, that's up to it.

anti-terrorism laws are, hopefully, not going to be a major problem.
anti-lobbying restrictions added by WMF are.
These restrictions on the chapter grants allow the WMF to continue to
say NONE in the relevant sections of its annual 990 form.

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:24, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
 I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters
 should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't
 complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build
 infrastructure for handling hundreds of applications and testing them
 on anti-terrorism laws, that's up to it.

 anti-terrorism laws are, hopefully, not going to be a major problem.
 anti-lobbying restrictions added by WMF are.
 These restrictions on the chapter grants allow the WMF to continue to
 say NONE in the relevant sections of its annual 990 form.

What I am saying is that Foundation will have to check every program
of every chapter, no matter if it would give one large or per-program
grants. And it will have to do no matter if chapters think that it is
their problem.

What would WMF do:
* If it finds whatever unacceptable in a program, it would say:
Please, find funds for that at some other place.
* If it finds whatever unacceptable too late, chapter for sure
wouldn't be internally responsible if it doesn't have a person with
relevant knowledge.

That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities.
Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger
chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that
will lead into even more delay in allocating grants. And that will
become WMF's problem, as the problem is when you plan to spend some
money and you don't do that.

And about chapters: There are two chapters' Board representatives. And
their term is going to be expired in half of the year or so. If
chapters are not happy with their current representation, they should
choose other persons to take care about their interests.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-29 Thread David Gerard

On 29 August 2011 11:51, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities.
 Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger
 chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that
 will lead into even more delay in allocating grants. And that will
 become WMF's problem, as the problem is when you plan to spend some
 money and you don't do that.


Several chapter representatives already consider WMF's grant programme
dysfunctional. The centralisation plan requires the infrastructure to
support it, and an assumption of reliability (which is a much stronger
requirement than assuming good faith) on those expected to live
substantially off grants assigned by the mechanism.

But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.

Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the
central planning is economically successful.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-29 Thread Nathan

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com
 wrote:
  On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
  On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com  wrote:
  Which activities are these?
  Copyright and internet law lobbying.
  This is incorrect.

 Michael,

 Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement?

 --
 John Vandenberg


I hadn't seen this document before, but have now. I retract my comment
regarding the chapters being required to comply with U.S. law. I'm not sure
what the full justification for the language in the agreement is, and I'd be
interested to hear it explained by an expert.

~Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.

 Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the
 central planning is economically successful.

Thanks to David Richfield, I've realized that this sentence requires
explanation. So here it is:

Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article sparrow leads to
passer and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology.

Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of
the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized
economy.

The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said Sparrows are guilty
for everything! After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have
been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for
grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of
great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China
abandoned centralized economy.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-29 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com  wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com  wrote:
 But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
 Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the
 central planning is economically successful.
 Thanks to David Richfield, I've realized that this sentence requires
 explanation. So here it is:

 Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article sparrow leads to
 passer and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology.

 Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of
 the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized
 economy.

 The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said Sparrows are guilty
 for everything! After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have
 been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for
 grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of
 great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China
 abandoned centralized economy.

 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer
 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine


Not that I want to carry this diversion too far, but sparrows are 
normally seed eaters.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:03, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
 On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
 Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article sparrow leads to
 passer and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology.

 Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of
 the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized
 economy.

 The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said Sparrows are guilty
 for everything! After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have
 been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for
 grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of
 great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China
 abandoned centralized economy.

 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer
 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine


 Not that I want to carry this diversion too far, but sparrows are
 normally seed eaters.

Actually, found article on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-29 Thread Michael Snow

On 8/28/2011 10:04 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com  wrote:
 On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.comwrote:
 Which activities are these?
 Copyright and internet law lobbying.
 This is incorrect.
 Michael,

 Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement?
I don't believe I have seen it, no. I gather from the other comments it 
contains language about grant recipients complying with US law. Without 
a more thorough review, I'm not in a position to say how necessary such 
language is or how extensively it would be interpreted with respect to a 
chapter's overall activities. However, it doesn't change my point that 
nonprofits can in fact engage in lobbying under US law.

--Michael Snow


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread rupert THURNER

2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
 On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:

 If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the
 WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it
 requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within
 particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws
 of their respective jurisdictions.  These are more important than the
 FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals.  There is no doubt
 that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash
 will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better
 to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than
 to play the role of a distrustful parent.

 +1
 I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
 what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
 locally. (Take a look at the international pages of oxfam, wwf,
 médecins sans frontières, etc.). Who are we to know better than these
 people who've been around for like... ever? Surely there is a reason
 for them doing this the way they do?

+1.
in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and
year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users,
we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that
means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000
donation.

any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing
to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we
probably do not want to walk.


 If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when
 they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and
 organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering
 organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make
 sense.


 There's a difference between organizational support and organizational
 takeover. One possible solution might be to not allow chapters to
 participate in the global fundraiser unless they already have a suitable
 organization in place, but that could make it more difficult for the WMF
 to take a piece of the chapter's action.


 Which brings up the question: how do chapters ever get to the point of
 being organisationally ready if they never take a crack at doing
 fundraising on their own? Pleasing donors near you brings on an
 incomparable motivation to do great things and adapt our mission to
 what is expected and needed in a given region. Pleasing the Wikimedia
 Foundation somehow does not, seem to me to have the same potential.
 You know, the very old parable of giving a fish and teaching to
 fish...

i like that :)

additionally we should not forget the entry point to reach a person.
building up additional fundraising procedures means additional ways to
contact people. do people really want to get spam mail from wikimedia
affiliated organizations, plus see people on the street asking to sign
long term donation contracts, plus experience other means common with
other NGO's? currently i did not hear the foundation is unhappy about
the income. so why bother so much tinkering with the status quo?

but i heard that wmf is, at least in some cases, unhappy with
spending. there should be more intelligent ways to improve spending
than micro managing the chapters spending via grant requests, also at
a timeline more appropriate to wikipedia ... which is made to stay
around at least for a couple of years.

imo, it would be wise to take our assets into account when designing
the next steps, no matter if it is on the donation side, or on the
spending side:
1. a globally visible web page, where a banner is sufficient to reach everybody
2. a culture of byte sized volunteering, everybody doing a little bit
but it fits at the end
3. wiki, i.e. make quick, small, non interruptive improvements to
finally become the best

rupert

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this
change? Of those that will be excluded this year (if any decisions on
that have been made or are anticipated), how many can expect to meet
the requirements for participation next year? Figuring this out may
have been part of the Board's research before announcing this change,
if so perhaps its been discussed elsewhere. If anyone has the details,
I'd be interested to see them.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Risker

On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:

 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
  On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
 wrote:
 
  If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the
  WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it
  requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within
  particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws
  of their respective jurisdictions.  These are more important than the
  FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals.  There is no doubt
  that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash
  will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better
  to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than
  to play the role of a distrustful parent.
 
  +1
  I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
  what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
  locally. (Take a look at the international pages of oxfam, wwf,
  médecins sans frontières, etc.). Who are we to know better than these
  people who've been around for like... ever? Surely there is a reason
  for them doing this the way they do?

 +1.
 in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and
 year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users,
 we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that
 means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000
 donation.

 any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing
 to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we
 probably do not want to walk.


See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about
chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last
time around.  In the real world, charities determine what their objectives
are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific
dollar objective in mind.  What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with
the equivalent of half a million US dollars?  And was that target
established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out on
the back of an envelope?  It's certainly not the way that any other charity
I know of develops its targets.  Now, last year was the first time this
process was tried, so nobody was really quite sure how to manage things;
however, with the 2010 fundraiser under our belts, not much has happened at
the chapter end to examine the models being used. Indeed, many chapters
still haven't worked out what to do with last year's windfall, let alone
done any advance planning for next year.

It's my contention that a very significant percentage of last year's donors
in particular believed that they were donating to the Wikimedia Foundation's
local office, not to local independent groups, many of which are quite
adamant that they are *not* the WMF.  Did anyone run a fundraising campaign
last year where donors had the choice of whether to donate to a local
organization versus the global one?  (Donate here to support Wikimedia
Chapter activities in XXX country - tax receipt issued vs Donate here to
support Wikimedia activities around the world - no tax receipt available)
Did local messages clearly delineate how the funds would be distributed, or
what the chapter's objectives and activities were?  In other words, were
donors fully informed about what their donation would be used for?

I see last year's fundraiser as an experiment. In some ways, it was
amazingly successful - more funds were raised, in total, than ever before.
But in other ways it was not - most of the chapters raised far more money
than they were in a position to deal with, and the lack of advance planning
in this area has raised a lot of questions within the Wikimedia community,
and could easily lead to concerns from outside agencies and individuals as
well.  The hypothetical that we were losing donors because in many
countries tax receipts could not be issued has turned out to be false -
because many chapters that received a percentage of local donations were
still not able to issue tax receipts last year. Realistically, given the
basic chapter agreement, there are many that will never be able to obtain
the local equivalent of charitable organization status.

This isn't a swipe at chapters at all - without exception, the chapters are
enthusiastic local drivers of the Wikimedia vision, regardless of their size
or location.  I have the sense that several chapters have found themselves
overwhelmed by the volume of donations they've received, and are genuinely
trying to be good stewards of those funds, but the structures simply aren't
in place for them to do so. I'd like to see some very serious effort on the
part of the WMF to help chapters develop these structures, both for existing
chapters, and for the Global South

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 28.08.2011 16:46, Risker wrote:
 On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNERrupert.thur...@gmail.com  wrote:

 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménardnotafi...@gmail.com:

 +1.
 in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and
 year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users,
 we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that
 means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000
 donation.

 any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing
 to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we
 probably do not want to walk.



 and could easily lead to concerns from outside agencies and individuals as
 well.  The hypothetical that we were losing donors because in many
 countries tax receipts could not be issued has turned out to be false -
 because many chapters that received a percentage of local donations were
 still not able to issue tax receipts last year. Realistically, given the
 basic chapter agreement, there are many that will never be able to obtain
 the local equivalent of charitable organization status.

This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need 
to have a receipt.

At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an 
amount to one national charitable association. A receipt is not 
requested if the donation is lower than a fixed amount (200 CHF ~300 USD).

http://www.wikimedia.ch/index.php?title=Donate/ensetlang=en

In general this is valid also for other countries (and in some of them 
it's sufficient to have a receipt of the transaction).

I don't know who has said that the tax receipts have not been issued and 
the persons were not able to receive the tax exemption, but this is 
incorrect.

In WM CH some receipts have not been issued *automatically* because we 
have received donations with incomplete data (the address for example), 
but these persons have never requested one. In general some of them 
prefer to donate locally because they would be sure that the money is 
spent for local projects and not for tax exemption.


Ilario

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread rupert THURNER

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 16:46, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:

 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
  On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
 wrote:
 
  If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the
  WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it
  requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within
  particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws
  of their respective jurisdictions.  These are more important than the
  FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals.  There is no doubt
  that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash
  will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better
  to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than
  to play the role of a distrustful parent.
 
  +1
  I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
  what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
  locally. (Take a look at the international pages of oxfam, wwf,
  médecins sans frontières, etc.). Who are we to know better than these
  people who've been around for like... ever? Surely there is a reason
  for them doing this the way they do?

 +1.
 in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and
 year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users,
 we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that
 means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000
 donation.

 any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing
 to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we
 probably do not want to walk.


 See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about
 chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last
 time around.  In the real world, charities determine what their objectives
 are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific
 dollar objective in mind.  What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with
 the equivalent of half a million US dollars?  And was that target
 established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out on
 the back of an envelope?  It's certainly not the way that any other charity
 I know of develops its targets.  Now, last year was the first time this
 process was tried, so nobody was really quite sure how to manage things;

what theoretical brainwash is this? we are working since 2005 towards
local landing pages, every year little bit more, and we finally got
there 2010, including the option to donate to the chapter or the
foundation. which proved to be successful. the targets were of course
not done via scientific research, but on the back of an envelope. we
tried asking the people passing by to give to wikipedia. and they were
prepared to give one CHF without thinking, but not 10. so we know
quite sure that the donation potential for switzerland might max out
at 2 mio CHF / year - if we reach a penetration of 50% of the working
population. and of course, have good progress.

what we do with the money? have more money than we can deal with? you
are joking! did you at any time in your whole life have difficulties
to spend money, or did somebody closed your bank account because it is
too full?  we wire a big chunk of the money to the foundation where it
is 0.X % of their income. we wire it despite it feels like spitting
into the ocean.

the main challenge is then to _not_ spend it, or in other words, not
waste it to not go in prison. the board decides on the details and
proposes the way to go, the general assembly (all members) decide on
the strategy, and the bylaws state the goals. our board is legally
responsible towards the swiss law and its easy to just walk to the
other side of the street and sue in case of money waste or spending
not within the bylaws. to see an example how the spending is
scrutinized, subscribe to the german mailing list. this by far
superiour cost control than what is existing at the wikimedia
foundation and, i would say 99.9 % of the other standard ngo's.

we are slow in spending, true. but the donors, at least in
switzerland, prefer slow spending to waste. do you know how many
employees wikimedia switzerland has? ZERO. we cannot tell if it will
make sense that it stays like this, but we are proud that we are
better and have less waste than other charities :) we do not need to
stand under bridges and in train stations, paying contractors 100% of
the first year, 75% of the second years donation and so on so they
hunt donators which then make a long year contract to pay us
regularly. we do not need to write spam mails to get donators. we do
not need to do all this usual ngo thing. we  only need good work,
and spend wisely. and i guess many people have fun with it, and are

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

Hi Risker

I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The
Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a
community member from english wikipedia, do you feel it has been accountable
to you or spent it on worthwhile activities for the community? the reality
is WMF raised several times more money than all chapters combined, this
year's target is 30% or so more than previous year's. Do you think
concentration of all that money with one organization and one entity is a
smart idea with a global movement like ours?

You are taking broad strokes here with chapters, It was a handful of
chapters that were allowed to fundraise last year (maybe 8 or 10 at most).
Not all of them were rolling in money instantly. it was going to be rolled
out to several more chapters this year or so was the plan, until
the fundraising summit this year, which everyone from the staff and most of
the interested chapters attended.

As for generalizations about chapters use of donor money, off the top of my
head, I can think of several projects that were possible because of the last
fundraiser, Wiki loves Monument, which was eventually rolled out to several
other chapters, there were multiple GLAM related activities- Wikipedian in
residence programs in Germany and France supported by the chapters this past
year. We can't forget the annual cost of Toolserver which was made possible
by WMDE's independent fundraising. There were probably more local projects
that were planned that we never heard about. I know there were discussions
about expanding several projects but now those chapters have all held
themselves in light of an uncertain future.

Its going to be the end of activities and projects like those, if chapter
independence to raise funds is taken away. I completely agreed with Birgitte
SB's take on the matter earlier.

Do you want WMF to be the sole and only authority for what the entire
movement does? Every project, every little activity in their slice of the
world or their online community has to be individually approved and
sanctioned by WMF. It's taking away independence of these small groups in
deciding what's best for their own part of the world or community, somewhere
along the line this is getting conflated into issues of accountability that
no one really disagrees with, not the chapters themselves. the only solution
because of certain chapters mismanagement, is to make every chapter more or
less a branch office of WMF.

Theo

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:

  2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
   On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
  wrote:
  
   If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the
   WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it
   requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated
 within
   particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting
 laws
   of their respective jurisdictions.  These are more important than the
   FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals.  There is no doubt
   that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of
 cash
   will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do
 better
   to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than
   to play the role of a distrustful parent.
  
   +1
   I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
   what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
   locally. (Take a look at the international pages of oxfam, wwf,
   médecins sans frontières, etc.). Who are we to know better than these
   people who've been around for like... ever? Surely there is a reason
   for them doing this the way they do?
 
  +1.
  in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and
  year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users,
  we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that
  means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000
  donation.
 
  any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing
  to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we
  probably do not want to walk.
 
 
 See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about
 chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last
 time around.  In the real world, charities determine what their
 objectives
 are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific
 dollar objective in mind.  What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with
 the equivalent of half a million US dollars?  And was that target
 established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out
 on
 the back of an envelope?  It's certainly not the way that any other charity
 I know of develops its

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread David Gerard

On 28 August 2011 14:40, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this
 change?


All except WMDE.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Thomas Dalton

On 28 August 2011 18:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 28 August 2011 14:40, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this
 change?


 All except WMDE.

That depends on what you mean by affected, really. I don't think it
will be just WMDE participating in the fundraiser. The WMF has said
that it intends to abide by existing agreements, which several
chapters had signed before Wikimania.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Delphine Ménard

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about
 chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last
 time around.  In the real world, charities determine what their objectives
 are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific
 dollar objective in mind.

In the real world, charities also make sure that their target is not
completely out of proportion with the fundraising potential they have
in a given geography. What's the point of thinking up fantastic
programmes for a budget of a million dollars if you know that the
maximum your country will ever give to your cause is 20 000 dollars.
So I find the exercise to be interesting.

  What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with
 the equivalent of half a million US dollars?  And was that target
 established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out on
 the back of an envelope?  It's certainly not the way that any other charity
 I know of develops its targets.  Now, last year was the first time this
 process was tried, so nobody was really quite sure how to manage things;
 however, with the 2010 fundraiser under our belts, not much has happened at
 the chapter end to examine the models being used. Indeed, many chapters
 still haven't worked out what to do with last year's windfall, let alone
 done any advance planning for next year.

 It's my contention that a very significant percentage of last year's donors
 in particular believed that they were donating to the Wikimedia Foundation's
 local office, not to local independent groups, many of which are quite
 adamant that they are *not* the WMF.  Did anyone run a fundraising campaign
 last year where donors had the choice of whether to donate to a local
 organization versus the global one?  (Donate here to support Wikimedia
 Chapter activities in XXX country - tax receipt issued vs Donate here to
 support Wikimedia activities around the world - no tax receipt available)
 Did local messages clearly delineate how the funds would be distributed, or
 what the chapter's objectives and activities were?  In other words, were
 donors fully informed about what their donation would be used for?

I suppose your statement is backed up by some research? As in, you
have data to support the fact that a significant percentage of last
year's donor believed they were donating to the Wikimedia Foundation's
local office? As a matter of fact, I suppose you can also back up the
fact that donors even understand what the Foundation (or the chapters
for that matter) are and what they do? I'd be happy to see this data,
it's cruelly missing.

 I see last year's fundraiser as an experiment. In some ways, it was
 amazingly successful - more funds were raised, in total, than ever before.
 But in other ways it was not - most of the chapters raised far more money
 than they were in a position to deal with, and the lack of advance planning
 in this area has raised a lot of questions within the Wikimedia community,
 and could easily lead to concerns from outside agencies and individuals as
 well.  The hypothetical that we were losing donors because in many
 countries tax receipts could not be issued has turned out to be false -
 because many chapters that received a percentage of local donations were
 still not able to issue tax receipts last year. Realistically, given the
 basic chapter agreement, there are many that will never be able to obtain
 the local equivalent of charitable organization status.

Did it ever come to you that the reason why chapters raised far more
money than they were in a position to deal with, might be:
1) the fact that more and more people want to support the projects
altogether (this is gonna stop at some point, the world is finite)
2) the fact that having a local chapter may have had something to do
with the far more?
I don't have data to back up my statement, so it's just a hypothesis,
please take it as such.

 This isn't a swipe at chapters at all - without exception, the chapters are
 enthusiastic local drivers of the Wikimedia vision, regardless of their size
 or location.  I have the sense that several chapters have found themselves
 overwhelmed by the volume of donations they've received, and are genuinely
 trying to be good stewards of those funds, but the structures simply aren't
 in place for them to do so. I'd like to see some very serious effort on the
 part of the WMF to help chapters develop these structures, both for existing
 chapters, and for the Global South chapters that are currently in early
 development.

And there, I can only agree. Only, this is not exactly the direction
we seem to be taking :)

Delphine
-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto -

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Risker

In what way is devolving money to many organizations in many countries
an *improvement* for accountability, particularly when the standards
for transparency and fiscal responsibility are minimal or
non-existent? I don't know about Risker, but I don't personally
believe the Foundation's money is being misspent. It helps that I know
the Foundation is a professional operation, and that it's spending and
priorities are disclosed.

More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total
fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapters in
the fundraiser is not, in anyway, an alternative to concentrating
money in the WMF.

[1]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWlqeHp5ak5uWncauthkey=CKb59_wDhl=en_US#gid=0

Its going to be the end of activities and projects like those, if chapter
independence to raise funds is taken away. I completely agreed with Birgitte
SB's take on the matter earlier.

Do you want WMF to be the sole and only authority for what the entire
movement does? Every project, every little activity in their slice of the
world or their online community has to be individually approved and
sanctioned by WMF. It's taking away independence of these small groups in
deciding what's best for their own part of the world or community, somewhere
along the line this is getting conflated into issues of accountability that
no one really disagrees with, not the chapters themselves. the only solution
because of certain chapters mismanagement, is to make every chapter more or
less a branch office of WMF.

Theo

First of all, the chapters can continue to fundraise how they like.
There are other methods of fundraising, and many thousands of other
non-profit groups that manage to fund themselves without the WMF
drive. If your goal is chapter independence, then you should be
encouraging chapters to engage in their own fundraising efforts. If
they have no source of funding other than the Wikimedia Foundation
annual fundraiser, then they are fully yoked to its continuing
goodwill and approval.

Second, there is no reason to expect that every little expenditure
will have to be approved by the WMF in advance. I haven't seen
outlines for requesting grants from the Foundation... have you seen
documents that suggest the requirements for receiving a grant will be
particularly onerous? Perhaps a chapter will establish a budget,
submit the budget to the WMF, and have the whole budget funded. That's
more along the lines of what I remember Phoebe and others suggesting.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 28.08.2011 21:00, Nathan wrote:
 On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ilario Valdellivalde...@gmail.com  wrote:
 This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need
 to have a receipt.

 At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an
 amount to one national charitable association. A receipt is not
 requested if the donation is lower than a fixed amount (200 CHF ~300 USD).

 Ilario


 What you mean is that this is false for Switzerland. I don't think
 Risker specified Switzerland in that part of her post.

 ~Nathan

I mean in general. I have listed the situation in Switzerland because 
this is well known by me, but in the other countries it doesn't change a 
lot.

Ilario

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 28.08.2011 21:00, Nathan wrote:
 On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ilario Valdellivalde...@gmail.com  wrote:
 This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need
 to have a receipt.

 At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an
 amount to one national charitable association. A receipt is not
 requested if the donation is lower than a fixed amount (200 CHF ~300 USD).

 Ilario


 What you mean is that this is false for Switzerland. I don't think
 Risker specified Switzerland in that part of her post.

 ~Nathan

Sorry, I would explain in a better way.

What Risker says is not documented, it seems to be an opinion.

What I have tried to do is to give a real example of fundraising made 
by a chapter with tax exemption.

So it means that I have documented my words.

It could be better if someone can document what he says.

Ilario

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Risker

I never said it was an improvement for accountability, accountability has no
relation to what I was asking. Devolving of money into many organizations in
many countries is happening and will continue to happen with the fundraising
or the grants system. Chapters will still receive the funding from a San
Francisco based non-profit in the grants system, rest assured that will not
change. What the current model changes is giving to the organization from
the same country and leaving it in charge of local activities, some may
offer tax-deductibility benefit, some may not. The idea is, since local
organizations know local needs better than a global one, they might be in a
better position to act. There are too numerous laws and restrictive tax
codes to point out why certain countries might have problems when the money
for all activities of an organization comes solely from a San Francisco
based Non-profit. The movement of money itself, back and
forth confounds this problem further.

Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability
standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible
than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure
you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US.

Then, the current strategic plan for the foundation, calls for an increased
focus on 'Global South'. As a 'Global South' resident I can assure you there
are restrictive laws about the movement of money from one country to a more
affluent one. Since the plan itself calls for attention and focus on these
areas, it might make sense to collect and spend money locally(?).

Lastly, I think what I am trying to argue for, is having multiple smaller
groups doing things independently and locally than one giant head
organization that pays the bills. You might think Foundation's money is not
being misspent, others might not. I am arguing for decentralization, more
independence for local groups. We can have more local GLAM activities and
more things like Wiki loves monument or even a better Toolserver. WMF is not
built to take on activities like those, or has tried to in my knowledge, in
the past.

That is what I meant when I said WMF collects several times more than all
chapters combined, let me add 'locally' if it helps. I also said, only a
handful of chapters were allowed to fundraise, an option which was being
planned to be offered to other chapters before it was taken away. You also
might want to look at the board letter and read the point about why global
south shouldn't get more of the proceeds than global north, since 80% is
from North America as you pointed out.

[1]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWlqeHp5ak5uWncauthkey=CKb59_wDhl=en_US#gid=0

Its going to be the end of activities and projects like those, if chapter
independence to raise funds is taken away. I completely agreed with
Birgitte
SB's take on the matter earlier.

Do you want WMF to be the sole and only authority for what the entire
movement does? Every project, every little activity in their slice of the
world or their online community has to be individually approved and
sanctioned by WMF. It's taking away independence of these small groups in
deciding what's best for their own part of the world or community,
somewhere
along the line this is getting conflated into issues of accountability
that
no one really disagrees with, not the chapters themselves. the only
solution
because of certain chapters mismanagement, is to make every chapter more
or
less a

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Béria Lima


 *That depends on what you mean by affected, really. I don't think it
 will be just WMDE participating in the fundraiser. The WMF has said that it
 intends to abide by existing agreements, which several chapters had signed
 before Wikimania.
 *


AFAIK, yes. Only WMDE will run fundraising. All chapters who signed the
agreement before wikimania received a Grant Agreement to replace the
fundraising one, and all chapters who should had signed the agreement in
Wikimania were adviced to do a normal grant.
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*


On 28 August 2011 18:10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 28 August 2011 18:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 28 August 2011 14:40, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this
  change?
 
 
  All except WMDE.

 That depends on what you mean by affected, really. I don't think it
 will be just WMDE participating in the fundraiser. The WMF has said
 that it intends to abide by existing agreements, which several
 chapters had signed before Wikimania.

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Risker

2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com

 On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

  See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions
 about
  chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last
  time around.  In the real world, charities determine what their
 objectives
  are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific
  dollar objective in mind.

 In the real world, charities also make sure that their target is not
 completely out of proportion with the fundraising potential they have
 in a given geography. What's the point of thinking up fantastic
 programmes for a budget of a million dollars if you know that the
 maximum your country will ever give to your cause is 20 000 dollars.
 So I find the exercise to be interesting.


I think we are saying the same thing, in different ways. Charities/chapters
should not be fundraising for targets they cannot realistically meet, either
by developing program plans that will cost considerably more than they are
likely to be able to support financially, or by raising more money than they
can justify by their ability to provide programs.  It is two faces of the
same coin.



   What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with
  the equivalent of half a million US dollars?  And was that target
  established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out
 on
  the back of an envelope?  It's certainly not the way that any other
 charity
  I know of develops its targets.  Now, last year was the first time this
  process was tried, so nobody was really quite sure how to manage things;
  however, with the 2010 fundraiser under our belts, not much has happened
 at
  the chapter end to examine the models being used. Indeed, many chapters
  still haven't worked out what to do with last year's windfall, let alone
  done any advance planning for next year.
 
  It's my contention that a very significant percentage of last year's
 donors
  in particular believed that they were donating to the Wikimedia
 Foundation's
  local office, not to local independent groups, many of which are quite
  adamant that they are *not* the WMF.  Did anyone run a fundraising
 campaign
  last year where donors had the choice of whether to donate to a local
  organization versus the global one?  (Donate here to support Wikimedia
  Chapter activities in XXX country - tax receipt issued vs Donate here
 to
  support Wikimedia activities around the world - no tax receipt
 available)
  Did local messages clearly delineate how the funds would be distributed,
 or
  what the chapter's objectives and activities were?  In other words, were
  donors fully informed about what their donation would be used for?

 I suppose your statement is backed up by some research? As in, you
 have data to support the fact that a significant percentage of last
 year's donor believed they were donating to the Wikimedia Foundation's
 local office? As a matter of fact, I suppose you can also back up the
 fact that donors even understand what the Foundation (or the chapters
 for that matter) are and what they do? I'd be happy to see this data,
 it's cruelly missing.


It's been 10 months since last I saw the landing pages for various chapters
(and would have no idea where to find them now), and I saw them before the
fundraiser went live so some changes may have been made after I saw them.
Bearing that in mind, one of the concerns that came to my mind even then was
that many of them did not make it explicitly clear that XX percent of the
donation was going to and independent local chapter. There was also a
significant lack of fiduciary information about the chapter entities to
which their donation was going - such as links to audited financial
statements, operational or strategic plans, current programs, expansion
plans, budgets, identities of the chapter board members, and so on.  All of
this information was available in some form or other  from the non-chapter
landing pages.  Indeed, I never could figure out from any of the chapter
landing pages what percentage of the donation stayed local and what
percentage would be submitted to the WMF.

In other words, I *knew* that these were chapter landing pages, I knew the
money was going to chapters, and even still it wasn't immediately obvious to
me that the money was going to a separate entity (the chapter) and not just
a local branch directly controlled by the WMF - or to the global WMF
fundraising pool.



 
  I see last year's fundraiser as an experiment. In some ways, it was
  amazingly successful - more funds were raised, in total, than ever
 before.
  But in other ways it was not - most of the chapters raised far more money
  than they were in a position to deal with, and the lack of advance
 planning
  in this area has raised a lot of questions within the Wikimedia
 community,
  and could easily lead to concerns from outside agencies and individuals
 as
  well.  The

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Risker

I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The
Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a
community member from english wikipedia, do you feel it has been accountable
to you or spent it on worthwhile activities for the community? the reality
is WMF raised several times more money than all chapters combined, this
year's target is 30% or so more than previous year's. Do you think
concentration of all that money with one organization and one entity is a
smart idea with a global movement like ours?
In what way is devolving money to many organizations in many countries
an *improvement* for accountability, particularly when the standards
for transparency and fiscal responsibility are minimal or
non-existent? I don't know about Risker, but I don't personally
believe the Foundation's money is being misspent. It helps that I know
the Foundation is a professional operation, and that it's spending and
priorities are disclosed.

If we are talking about the money raised in the country itself how is
that devolving. That seems too much like the financial model used by
the business agents for ladies of the night. The issue has nothing to do
with whether Foundation funds are being misspent. Having the Foundation
as a professional operation is of absolutely no interest to me..
Professional operations tend to develop different priorities from
amateur ones.
More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total
fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapters in
the fundraiser is not, in anyway, an alternative to concentrating
money in the WMF.

[1]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWlqeHp5ak5uWncauthkey=CKb59_wDhl=en_US#gid=0

That link shows 67.75% as being from the USA.
Its going to be the end of activities and projects like those, if chapter
independence to raise funds is taken away. I completely agreed with Birgitte
SB's take on the matter earlier.

Theo

I have no problem with this. Chapters should be made to understand the
consequences of swallowing poison pills.

Due diligence requires management to be wary of what they have no
reason to expect. For a person who hasn't seen grant request outlines
you do a lot of speculation about what they don't contain. To the
extent that chapters require grants, it is wholly reasonable that they
establish the need for those grants, and be accountable for them when
they receive them. Beyond the startup stage chapters should strive to
have independent core funding. so as not to require WMF grants to fund
core operations. That's an important part of being responsible and
accountable; national laws too play a big role in establishing
accountability and transparency. It would be irresponsible for a
chapter board member to base his policy stands on the suggested
interpretation of one WMF board member.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Mike Godwin

Theo writes:

 Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability
 standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible
 than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure
 you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US.

I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you
say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational
transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which
direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal
view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not
that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are more transparent and fiscally
responsible than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and
must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at
multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a
range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of
charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a
single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements.

So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that
it's not a question of whose rules are better, whose motives are
better, who is more trustworthy, etc.  I believe it's appropriate for
everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the
accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot
of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every
cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of
effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the
German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for
chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly
different.

This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules.

I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately)
attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as
possible, but no simpler.” (See
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .)


--Mike

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Victor Vasiliev

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 Bearing that in mind, one of the concerns that came to my mind even then was
 that many of them did not make it explicitly clear that XX percent of the
 donation was going to and independent local chapter. There was also a
 significant lack of fiduciary information about the chapter entities to
 which their donation was going - such as links to audited financial
 statements, operational or strategic plans, current programs, expansion
 plans, budgets, identities of the chapter board members, and so on.  All of
 this information was available in some form or other  from the non-chapter
 landing pages.  Indeed, I never could figure out from any of the chapter
 landing pages what percentage of the donation stayed local and what
 percentage would be submitted to the WMF.

Oh, WMF landing page contains so many links to all the things you
mention (especially comparing to WMDE's or WMFR's landing page).

 In other words, I *knew* that these were chapter landing pages, I knew the
 money was going to chapters, and even still it wasn't immediately obvious to
 me that the money was going to a separate entity (the chapter) and not just
 a local branch directly controlled by the WMF - or to the global WMF
 fundraising pool.

And you assume most people even know what WMF is and what is the
difference between WMF and chapters? Come on, go to
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate and count how many times
Wikimedia is mentioned (answer: 3, 2 times in the footer). Then count
how many times Wikipedia is mentioned (11 times in the main text).
People are donating to Wikipedia, not WMF, and WMF knows that and
hence designs the fundraising messages in that way (remember the
Wikipedia CEO incident?). Chapters are much more honest in this
respect.

-vvv

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread WereSpielChequers

It was interesting to hear from Switzerland, here in the UK things are very
different.  One difference between the UK model and the US/Swiss model is
that the tax largely accrues to the charity not to the donor. Another
feature of UK charity giving is that it is heavily skewed towards legacies,
but with an important area of payroll giving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Payroll_givingaction=historysubmitdiff=440298809oldid=379043086
,

And while we might be cautious about taking money from some companies
directly, it is a very different matter if that same company is matching the
charity donations that their employees give via Payroll giving.

There is also a tradition of charity endorsed calenders and Christmas cards
that for some charities can represent an important revenues stream. I would
suggest that a charity which can produce Dad's presents such as a
Battleship themed calender has a ready niche in this market.

Some of that may be similar to whatever country you live in, but the odds
are that unless you come from the UK parts of it will be very different. For
example Ireland has a system whereby charities endorse prize draws...
That's why big successful multinational charities tend to decentralise so
they can take advantage of such national differences.


WSC
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Thomas Dalton

On 28 August 2011 21:56, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:

 *That depends on what you mean by affected, really. I don't think it
 will be just WMDE participating in the fundraiser. The WMF has said that it
 intends to abide by existing agreements, which several chapters had signed
 before Wikimania.
 *


 AFAIK, yes. Only WMDE will run fundraising. All chapters who signed the
 agreement before wikimania received a Grant Agreement to replace the
 fundraising one, and all chapters who should had signed the agreement in
 Wikimania were adviced to do a normal grant.

That's what the WMF wanted to do, but it depends on the chapters
agreeing to waive the existing agreements. Has that happened? I don't
think it has.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 28.08.2011 23:47, Mike Godwin wrote:
 Theo writes:

 Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability
 standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible
 than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure
 you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US.

 of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every
 cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of
 effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the
 German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for
 chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly
 different.



This is interesting because what has been pointed out it's that the 
chapters are insecure and they are risky.

This is incomprehensible for chapters that receive an audit every year 
(audit done by an external company).

I would say that in this case what is insecure is not the chapter, which 
is absolutely complaint with the local law, but it's insecure and 
unreliable the system of control applied by WMF.

The chapters must take care of the local law, and this is sufficient and 
valid to drive a local fundraising.

If the chapters are really independent and they are linked to WMF only 
with some agreements, I don't understand why we must speak about the US 
law for an European chapter.

The WMF applies the US law to all of their affairs and can monitor and 
audit the relation with the chapters, but further these relations, the 
US law stops its validity.

I agree that the German model is not valid for all chapters, and this 
happens for a lot of questions, one important question is that the WM DE 
manage different quantity of donations and that WM DE has chosen a 
different organization of the voluntary service.

As to evaluate the maturity of a chapter we cannot compare it with WM 
DE, at the same time we cannot compare the reliability of one chapter 
applying a law in force in another country.

Ilario

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

Several points in reply to Theo:

1) You don't need to argue the value of having chapters around the world. No
one debating that. It's accepted that effective global outreach requires
effective local partners, and that local chapters are the way to achieve the
best results. I think its generally well known that there are countries
where it is problematic to receive large amounts of money from foreign
organizations, or to send money overseas. But...

2) Organizations that receive money under the aegis of the WMF need to
understand that the WMF has a legal and ethical duty to ensure that the
funds are well spent. This isn't a US vs. other places argument - its a
the WMF has to meet its obligations to the community argument. As an
organization that strives to be far more accountable and transparent to the
public than a normal non-profit, these obligations greatly exceed the
minimum requirements of law. I'm sure many nations have strict laws
governing the operations of non-profits, and we all hope and expect that all
chapters meet and exceed these minimum requirements... but the chapters must
meet the Foundation's expectations for transparency and fiscal
responsibility, not just the what is required by law.

3) Your point about the nature of non-profit organizations doesn't make
sense as a response to what I said. Perhaps you can re-read what I wrote and
reconsider your response.  Regardless,  I'm not sure I understand exactly
why people opposed to the new requirements of the WMF are ignoring the
obvious fact that chapters can continue to raise funds on their own. Grants,
some sorts of partnerships, direct contributions, etc. The Board letter is
not You can't raise any funds at all its You have to do X, Y and Z in
order to join the WMF fundraiser.


Let's just reiterate the requirements described by the Board letter:

** An organization can directly receive donor funds as a payment processor
if
the following criteria are met:
** There is sufficient money raised in the geography to merit the logistical
effort.
** The organization offers tax deductibility or other incentives to local
donors.
** Regulatory issues about any international funds flows are fully resolved.
** The organization's current financial resources are not enough to fund
proposed program work.
** The Foundation can confidently assure donors to the chapter that their
donations will be safeguarded, that our movement's transparency principles
will be met, and that spending will be in line with our mission and with the
messages used to attract donors.
* The donation process should clearly disclose basic facts about the
organization receiving the donation.*

Tax deductibility may be a major challenge or impossible in some
jurisdictions. Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters? Here's how I
interpret what the Board has written:

(a) Regulatory issues have to be resolved, which was true (in order to
protect local organizations from liability) regardless of this letter.

(b) Having many times more money than planned is a risk obvious to anyone.
The WMF is trying to prevent a situation where chapters have huge bank
accounts but no organizational capacity or financial controls. That means
diligent and clear accounting according to international accounting
standards, controls against the risk of theft, fraud or misappropriation,
and outside independent audits. Such demands are the basic responsibility of
the WMF to donors it refers to chapters.

(c) Chapters who receive money from the WMF should disclose in detail how
much money they've received and how it is being spent, to the WMF and the
movement community. As above, funds should be safeguarded by appropriate
financial controls (which may or may not be mandated by law in any
jurisdiction). Money received through the WMF should be spent solely on
movement goals.

(d) Chapters receiving money should disclose to donors the chapters' nature,
history, composition and leadership.

Why anyone should object to these requirements is hard for me to understand.
I can see why chapters would be perturbed about needing to meet them on a
short timeline, but generally speaking they should all have had these as
aims to begin with.

Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread David Gerard

On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

  Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
 like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters?


Because that's its effect: The entire system of chapters, except
WMDE, is hereby recentralised. Thanks for your hard work, everyone!

Saying nice things about how much you like decentralisation does not
change the effect.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 08/28/11 2:47 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
 Theo writes:
 Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability
 standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible
 than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure
 you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US.
 I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you
 say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational
 transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which
 direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal
 view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not
 that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are more transparent and fiscally
 responsible than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and
 must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at
 multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a
 range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of
 charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a
 single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements.

Yes, and my impression is that there is even less international 
agreement on this than there is on copyright. I agree that comparing 
rules to see which country has better rules will get us nowhere.


A key feature considered by the Chapters Committee in recognizing 
chapters is: The chapter must have a legal structure/corporation that 
is legally independant from the Wikimedia Foundation. This either means 
something or it doesn't. So while the WMF is clearly a U.S. nonprofit, 
so too are the chapters comparably so in their own countries.

What may be important here is the nature of the fundraising agreement.  
We need to ask such questions as whether the WMF collects money from 
foreign territories on its own behalf or as an agent of the relevant 
national chapter.

 So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that
 it's not a question of whose rules are better, whose motives are
 better, who is more trustworthy, etc.  I believe it's appropriate for
 everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the
 accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot
 of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every
 cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of
 effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the
 German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for
 chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly
 different.

Perhaps the faulty premise that has led to this latest round of debates 
is that a single one-size-fits-all model could be developed. The easy 
way out can end up being the most difficult. My understanding is that 
the people who attended the Vienna meeting were disappointed that it was 
not called for the purpose of negotiation.

 This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules.

Yes, but the chapters (other than those in the US) are not.

 I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately)
 attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as
 possible, but no simpler.” (See
 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .)


The funding problem is a simple matter of relativity.

Rayu

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

   Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
  like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters?


 Because that's its effect: The entire system of chapters, except
 WMDE, is hereby recentralised. Thanks for your hard work, everyone!

 Saying nice things about how much you like decentralisation does not
 change the effect.


 - d.


Other than saying You're recentralising the chapters by forcing us to raise
/ receive money through the WMF! no one has really adequately described how
this is the case. Chapters were only participating in the fundraiser for one
year. Even then, they relied on the WMF to attract and refer donors. At
worst, chapters are as decentralised as they were prior to the 2010
fundraiser. Accounting to the WMF for how money is managed and spent does
not seem like such an extraordinary requirement that people should react as
if the chapters were being scrapped. What did they want to do with the money
that this is an impossible burden?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

Hi Mike

I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU
chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local
restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison
is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best
people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not an
international one based in another country.

I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, WMF is a U.S. nonprofit
and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules, so is a German, French
or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own
country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to
comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they
will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which
doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either
party.

I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model
that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of charitable
funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in Global
south). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving them
time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started, doesn't
address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money from
all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now, but
in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be given
freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of
its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address most
of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund collection
(it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to
another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of
being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through a
grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time.

Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable
because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we stick
to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to develop
what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there is
no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues.

Theo


On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Theo writes:

  Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think
 accountability
  standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally
 responsible
  than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I
 assure
  you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US.

 I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you
 say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational
 transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which
 direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal
 view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not
 that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are more transparent and fiscally
 responsible than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and
 must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at
 multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a
 range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of
 charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a
 single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements.

 So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that
 it's not a question of whose rules are better, whose motives are
 better, who is more trustworthy, etc.  I believe it's appropriate for
 everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the
 accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot
 of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every
 cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of
 effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the
 German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for
 chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly
 different.

 This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules.

 I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately)
 attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as
 possible, but no simpler.” (See
 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .)


 --Mike

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Mike

 I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU
 chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local
 restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison
 is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best
 people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not an
 international one based in another country.

 I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, WMF is a U.S.
 nonprofit
 and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules, so is a German, French
 or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own
 country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to
 comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they
 will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which
 doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either
 party.

 I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model
 that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of
 charitable
 funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in Global
 south). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving
 them
 time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started,
 doesn't
 address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money from
 all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now,
 but
 in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be
 given
 freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of
 its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address most
 of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund collection
 (it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to
 another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of
 being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through a
 grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time.

 Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable
 because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we
 stick
 to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to develop
 what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there is
 no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues.

 Theo



The whole idea of requiring non-US chapters to abide by US law is a
strawman. No one has suggested, anywhere, that chapters need to follow U.S.
law. What has been suggested, by the letter and by other comments, is that
the WMF must follow US law, including in how it works with international
organisations and donations that flow to them through the WMF.

Additionally, the WMF has self-imposed obligations beyond the law. In order
to meet both its legal and other obligations, the WMF needs to be satisfied
that funds are being managed and spent appropriately. This requires a WMF
one size fits all general policy; WM DE, WM FR, WM CH etc. may be so
sophisticated that assurances and disclosures to the WMF are unnecessary,
but this can't be said for all chapters or chapters not yet established.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote:

 On 8/29/11 1:45 AM, Nathan wrote:
  On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com  wrote:
 
  On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathannawr...@gmail.com  wrote:
 
Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
  like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters?
 
 
  Because that's its effect: The entire system of chapters, except
  WMDE, is hereby recentralised. Thanks for your hard work, everyone!
 
  Saying nice things about how much you like decentralisation does not
  change the effect.
 
 
  - d.
 
 
  Other than saying You're recentralising the chapters by forcing us to
 raise
  / receive money through the WMF! no one has really adequately described
 how
  this is the case. Chapters were only participating in the fundraiser for
 one
  year.

 UH ???

 One year ???

 Florence


True, I misspoke. Twelve chapters participated in 2010, 9 in 2009, 6 in
2007. Apologies for the error.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

In line replies to Nathan.

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Several points in reply to Theo:

 1) You don't need to argue the value of having chapters around the world.
 No
 one debating that. It's accepted that effective global outreach requires
 effective local partners, and that local chapters are the way to achieve
 the
 best results. I think its generally well known that there are countries
 where it is problematic to receive large amounts of money from foreign
 organizations, or to send money overseas. But...


We agree.



 2) Organizations that receive money under the aegis of the WMF need to
 understand that the WMF has a legal and ethical duty to ensure that the
 funds are well spent. This isn't a US vs. other places argument - its a
 the WMF has to meet its obligations to the community argument. As an
 organization that strives to be far more accountable and transparent to the
 public than a normal non-profit, these obligations greatly exceed the
 minimum requirements of law. I'm sure many nations have strict laws
 governing the operations of non-profits, and we all hope and expect that
 all
 chapters meet and exceed these minimum requirements... but the chapters
 must
 meet the Foundation's expectations for transparency and fiscal
 responsibility, not just the what is required by law.


Actually its under the aegis of Wikipedia, someone here pointed out a recent
landing page where Wikipedia is mentioned at least a dozen times and
Wikimedia 3-4. You might recall the last fundraiser and Director of
Wikipedia incident with one of the banners, those are 2 distinct things. The
entire notion that WMF has to meet its obligation to the community is a
far-reaching statement, if you've been on Foundation-l long enough, you know
most people here might dispute that, regardless of your opinion. There are
couple of threads on Foundation-l already, that disputes if WMF meets its
own obligations to the community. And then there is the problem that the
foundation never laid out those expectation of transparency and
responsibility and said X chapter fails and Y doesn't. It did, however
remove all chapters (except WMDE) from fundraising all together.



 3) Your point about the nature of non-profit organizations doesn't make
 sense as a response to what I said. Perhaps you can re-read what I wrote
 and
 reconsider your response.  Regardless,  I'm not sure I understand exactly
 why people opposed to the new requirements of the WMF are ignoring the
 obvious fact that chapters can continue to raise funds on their own.
 Grants,
 some sorts of partnerships, direct contributions, etc. The Board letter is
 not You can't raise any funds at all its You have to do X, Y and Z in
 order to join the WMF fundraiser.


Let me reiterate, Non-profits such as Oxfam have local organizations that
they direct funds to. When an individual gives to Oxfam he's probably giving
to his local organization. When you visit Oxfam.com you will see a box with
the nearest local organization, you can donate to, on your right- that is a
model followed by several large Non-profits. Now, how that fits into the
nature of Wikipedia and the nature of fundraising - WMF tried several other
methods of fundraising as did chapters, but they all paled in comparison to
a banner on Wikipedia. WMF has been relying on that method primarily, but
since it's only US based, it can't offer the same tax-deductibility in all
those countries, that's where chapters might come in (See your point 1)
where they might be able to raise funds WMF simply can not and do outreach
better than a global organization (as in the case of Oxfam), then there is
the issue of entitlement, should WMF be the sole beneficiary of all proceeds
raised in the name of Wikipedia?




 Let's just reiterate the requirements described by the Board letter:

 ** An organization can directly receive donor funds as a payment processor
 if
 the following criteria are met:
 ** There is sufficient money raised in the geography to merit the
 logistical
 effort.
 ** The organization offers tax deductibility or other incentives to local
 donors.
 ** Regulatory issues about any international funds flows are fully
 resolved.
 ** The organization's current financial resources are not enough to fund
 proposed program work.
 ** The Foundation can confidently assure donors to the chapter that their
 donations will be safeguarded, that our movement's transparency principles
 will be met, and that spending will be in line with our mission and with
 the
 messages used to attract donors.
 * The donation process should clearly disclose basic facts about the
 organization receiving the donation.*


Someone made this distinction a while ago, do remember that it is WMF's
board. Not the movement's, the chapter's or the community's. Its responsible
for WMF governance not the movement's.


 Tax deductibility may be a major challenge or impossible in some
 jurisdictions. Which other criteria

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Mike

I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU
chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local
restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in
comparison
is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best
people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not
an
international one based in another country.

I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, WMF is a U.S.
nonprofit
and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules, so is a German,
French
or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own
country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to
comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when
they
will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones
which
doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either
party.

I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model
that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of
charitable
funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in Global
south). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving
them
time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started,
doesn't
address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money
from
all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now,
but
in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be
given
freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of
its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address
most
of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund
collection
(it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to
another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of
being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through
a
grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time.

Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable
because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we
stick
to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to
develop
what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there
is
no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues.

Theo

The whole idea of requiring non-US chapters to abide by US law is a
strawman. No one has suggested, anywhere, that chapters need to follow U.S.
law. What has been suggested, by the letter and by other comments, is that
the WMF must follow US law, including in how it works with international
organisations and donations that flow to them through the WMF.

Please read points 4 and 5.[1] Let me quote This agreement is subject to
the laws of the United States of America and the State of California,
without regard to conflict of law rules, point 4 lays out the venue to be
San Francisco County, California for any litigation between the parties.

Additionally, the WMF has self-imposed obligations beyond the law. In order
to meet both its legal and other obligations, the WMF needs to be satisfied
that funds are being managed and spent appropriately. This requires a WMF
one size fits all general policy; WM DE, WM FR, WM CH etc. may be so
sophisticated that assurances and disclosures to the WMF are unnecessary,
but this can't be said for all chapters or chapters not yet established.

You are giving undue weight when you say self-imposed obligations beyond
the law but that is a matter of opinion. Actually I never argued that
sophisticated chapters don't require assurance and disclosure, they do,
and most of them do comply. There are however no requirements set forth by
WMF on what to comply on. There are 35+ chapters in total, only about 10 or
so have participated in fundraiser, this ability was rolled out to more
chapters, it still doesn't cover even half of them. I do believe that there
are local laws not permitting them from joining or their own choice or
infrastructure, either way, there is a development cycle that most chapters
go through before they join fundraising. This would prevent maturation and
effectively, put the current conditions in stasis.

Theo

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011/Chapters/Fundraising_Agreement#Legal_stuff
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Victor Vasiliev

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 If the WMF plans for grants to be the interim method of funding for
 developing chapters (aside from that raised independently by the chapters
 themselves) then I expect that they will tweak the process to account for
 the specific issues involved (like not wanting to bury chapters in
 book-length paperwork requirements).
Oh, really? Do you really believe that current Foundation staff is
capable of handling at least 30 different organization around the
world? I doubt it. Even now, the situation is fairly ridiculous: they
sign the same (am I correct?) agreement with all chapters, regardless
of how much would this chapter get, what is its budget, how difficult
is it to transfer money to and fro.

The problem with over-budget money may be solved fairly easily: just
make an independent, per-chapter-tailored fundraiser. If UK chapter
collects its budget faster than WMF, just change their landing page to
WMF, and they will not get unused money! Neither will they have to
transfer anything to WMF. If some other chapter does not collect its
budget, make its fundraiser longer. Some chapters are doomed to be
locally underfunded; they can apply for WMF grants. Besides, some
chapters are located in countries where December fundraising is
legally problematic.

But please, get rid of the idea that WMF can act in a similar way to
all chapters and sign the same agreement. Instead of forcing one-way
funding model, Foundation should *really* work on the way it
communicates with chapters. Either by loosening the control or by
increasing the amount of time spent on them. Honestly, I believe that
right now it would extremely irresponsible from their side to take
obligations of approving and controlling the budget of 30 chapters, as
am almost certain they would not be able to fulfill them adequately.

--vvv

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread John Vandenberg

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Mike

 I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU
 chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local
 restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison
 is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best
 people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not an
 international one based in another country.

 I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, WMF is a U.S.
 nonprofit
 and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules, so is a German, French
 or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own
 country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to
 comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they
 will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which
 doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either
 party.

 I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model
 that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of
 charitable
 funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in Global
 south). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving
 them
 time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started,
 doesn't
 address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money from
 all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now,
 but
 in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be
 given
 freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of
 its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address most
 of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund collection
 (it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to
 another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of
 being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through a
 grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time.

 Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable
 because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we
 stick
 to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to develop
 what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there is
 no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues.

 Theo



 The whole idea of requiring non-US chapters to abide by US law is a
 strawman. No one has suggested, anywhere, that chapters need to follow U.S.
 law. What has been suggested, by the letter and by other comments, is that
 the WMF must follow US law, including in how it works with international
 organisations and donations that flow to them through the WMF.

You're strawman is alive.

If the chapters are funded by the WMF, non-US chapters need to abide by US law.

If all of the fundraising money goes to the WMF, who then distributes
it to chapters via grants, all chapters must comply with the US
regulations regarding use of money by a 501(c)(3) charity, and any
additional constraints that the WMF puts on these grants in order to
minimise its own risks and simplify its own compliance checking.

By doing this, the WMF is taking on more risk, rather than less.
And it is taking on more work, as it will need to ensure that all
chapters expenditure from these grants is compliant with US
regulations.

There are several chapters whose existing program includes activities
that are acceptable under their own laws, but will not be able to be
funded by WMF because of the US regulations.

--
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

Few last points before I duck out of this conversation for awhile...

There are international accounting standards (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Accounting_Standards_Board). It's
not necessary that all organizations follow them to the letter, obviously,
because not all nations (including the United States) accept them. The point
is, I'm sure, that in order for the WMF to achieve the points laid out in
the Board letter, they will need to see certain types of information from
the chapters. To have confidence in that information, some common
understanding of how reports are developed will have to be agreed upon.

I don't have the background on the Board's decision necessary to understand
why they chose the particular timing they did. If it were me, knowing only
what I know, I would have deferred the effect of the change until the next
fundraiser. But, that carries risks - if they were informed of a material
problem and chose to defer for a year, they could incur some serious
liability. I believe they see the Wikimedia movement as an international
endeavor, and the chapters as an integral part of it, and I remain convinced
that the Board members have the best interests of the Foundation and the
movement at heart.

Having said that, Assume Good Faith is not how corporations with lots of
money protect themselves. It's a good principle when interacting with
people, but corporations (for profit or otherwise) need to establish
controls based on the potential for bad actors. It's not about distrusting
partners, its about fulfilling a fiduciary duty of care for the corporation
that will survive changes in personnel and circumstance.

Finally, the WMF certainly does have an obligation to meet the expectations
of the community in many areas of concern. That doesn't mean they can or
should reveal every detail, nor does it mean it will always successfully
meet the expectations of every individual or even the community as a whole.
Perhaps Theo's experience with this list is different than mine, but after 4
years of subscribing I can't think of anyone who doesn't believe the
Foundation is responsible to the Wikimedia community.

Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:15 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:


 You're strawman is alive.

 If the chapters are funded by the WMF, non-US chapters need to abide by US
 law.

 If all of the fundraising money goes to the WMF, who then distributes
 it to chapters via grants, all chapters must comply with the US
 regulations regarding use of money by a 501(c)(3) charity, and any
 additional constraints that the WMF puts on these grants in order to
 minimise its own risks and simplify its own compliance checking.

 By doing this, the WMF is taking on more risk, rather than less.
 And it is taking on more work, as it will need to ensure that all
 chapters expenditure from these grants is compliant with US
 regulations.

 There are several chapters whose existing program includes activities
 that are acceptable under their own laws, but will not be able to be
 funded by WMF because of the US regulations.

 --
 John Vandenberg


Which activities are these?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Victor Vasiliev

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 Which activities are these?

Copyright and internet law lobbying.

--vvv

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread Michael Snow

On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com  wrote:
 Which activities are these?
 Copyright and internet law lobbying.
This is incorrect. The foundation can engage in lobbying under US 
regulations if it wishes. Restrictions on lobbying by nonprofits are a 
limitation in degree, not a prohibition. Lobbying simply cannot be too 
significant a portion of the nonprofit's activities. If a nonprofit does 
engage in lobbying, the IRS has various tests that can be applied to 
determine if its tax exemption is jeopardized.

The reason for the popular misconception is that most nonprofits avoid 
lobbying altogether out of an abundance of caution. What the foundation 
actually cannot do is contribute to political candidates or support 
partisan activities, those are categorically prohibited.

--Michael Snow


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-28 Thread John Vandenberg

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
 On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com  wrote:
 Which activities are these?
 Copyright and internet law lobbying.
 This is incorrect.

Michael,

Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement?

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-27 Thread Florence Devouard

 2011/8/11 Jimmy Walesjwa...@wikia-inc.com

 On 8/10/11 8:51 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
 I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being
 centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe
 will make chapters ineffective.

 Chapters are not being centralized.  I don't know how I can be more clear.

 The idea that the only thing that can make chapters really decentralized
 is the very narrow question of who actually processes the donation is
 mistaken.

 --Jimbo

Decentralization would be possibly maintained if grants were 
unrestricted ones.

But this is not what is being done. Grants are restricted.

When chapters used to fundraise themselves, they had the power to decide 
their programs, as fit an organization that is independant.

Chapters are losing that power. From the moment Wikimedia Foundation 
gives grants according to specific projects they approve or do not 
approve, they actually decide what the chapter does or does not.

Chapters are being centralized. I don't know how we can be more clear on 
that.

Florence


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-27 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 08/26/11 2:26 PM, Nathan wrote:
 On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijklodew...@effeietsanders.org  wrote:
 Hi Jimmy,

 There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
 to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
 take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other
 aspects to be considered, such as transparancy. However, imho fundraising
 through chapters should remain the best way).
 Lodewijk,

 I don't think the chapters are barred from all fundraising... At most,
 they are at risk of not being able to participate in the global WMF
 fundraiser. They can still raise funds on their own through other
 methods. Maybe such other methods are more time consuming, difficult
 and less lucrative... But there are innovative substitutes for the WMF
 annual fundraiser, I'm sure.

I agree with that much. Chapters should be warned not to become 
dependent on the WMF fundraiser.  Information about such innovative 
substitutes may need to be more freely shared.  The result may indeed be 
decreased revenues, but if one of the complaints is that some chapters 
are sitting on piles of money that they don't use there may not be much 
harm to that.

 In any case, the barriers to participation relate to the
 organizational capacity of the chapters and the associated risks. A
 chapter that has financial controls and active leadership should be
 able to meet the WMFs requirements (with the exception of tax
 deduction eligibility, based on jurisdiction); a chapter that does not
 puts both their funds and their public reputation at risk.  As the
 host of the fundraiser and the mark owner, the WMF shares in that risk
 - and it is both reasonable and necessary that the Foundation adhere
 to and require minimum standards of accountability in order to
 mitigate the risk of fraud, waste and abuse.

If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the 
WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it 
requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within 
particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws 
of their respective jurisdictions.  These are more important than the 
FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals.  There is no doubt 
that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash 
will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better 
to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than 
to play the role of a distrustful parent.

 If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when
 they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and
 organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering
 organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make
 sense.


There's a difference between organizational support and organizational 
takeover. One possible solution might be to not allow chapters to 
participate in the global fundraiser unless they already have a suitable 
organization in place, but that could make it more difficult for the WMF 
to take a piece of the chapter's action.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-27 Thread Delphine Ménard

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:

 If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the
 WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it
 requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within
 particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws
 of their respective jurisdictions.  These are more important than the
 FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals.  There is no doubt
 that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash
 will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better
 to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than
 to play the role of a distrustful parent.

+1
I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
locally. (Take a look at the international pages of oxfam, wwf,
médecins sans frontières, etc.). Who are we to know better than these
people who've been around for like... ever? Surely there is a reason
for them doing this the way they do?


 If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when
 they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and
 organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering
 organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make
 sense.


 There's a difference between organizational support and organizational
 takeover. One possible solution might be to not allow chapters to
 participate in the global fundraiser unless they already have a suitable
 organization in place, but that could make it more difficult for the WMF
 to take a piece of the chapter's action.


Which brings up the question: how do chapters ever get to the point of
being organisationally ready if they never take a crack at doing
fundraising on their own? Pleasing donors near you brings on an
incomparable motivation to do great things and adapt our mission to
what is expected and needed in a given region. Pleasing the Wikimedia
Foundation somehow does not, seem to me to have the same potential.
You know, the very old parable of giving a fish and teaching to
fish...

Best,

Delphine

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-27 Thread Thomas Dalton

2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
 I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
 what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
 locally.

Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the plan was,
but then Ting clarified that no such decision had been made. I haven't
seen anything since then about what the long-term system will be. I
suspect everyone is concentrating on the next fundraiser rather that
subsequent ones, and that's understandable. We do need to work out
what we're going to do after this one sooner rather than later,
though.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-27 Thread Delphine Ménard

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
 Hi Jimmy,

 There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
 to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
 take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other
 aspects to be considered, such as transparancy. However, imho fundraising
 through chapters should remain the best way).


 Lodewijk,

 I don't think the chapters are barred from all fundraising... At most,
 they are at risk of not being able to participate in the global WMF
 fundraiser. They can still raise funds on their own through other
 methods. Maybe such other methods are more time consuming, difficult
 and less lucrative... But there are innovative substitutes for the WMF
 annual fundraiser, I'm sure.

Yes, there are. But no, there aren't. For anyone who's been involved
in grants proposals, the Wikimedia Foundation included, it is clear
that grants are often restricted, or come with strings attached, and
that you end up building an ugly statue in front of your local
swimming pool to please a very generous but extremely demanding big
donor. Not that these ways shouldn't be explored, but I find the idea
that community donations (or to put it more broadly: individual
donations) are much more powerful to bring forward what we're doing
than mega grants that will ever only tackle one side of the mission.
Grants monitored by the Wikimedia Foundation will, yes, go towards the
mission as a whole, but what about local specificities? Will they be
considered part of the mission? Wait and see...


 In any case, the barriers to participation relate to the
 organizational capacity of the chapters and the associated risks. A
 chapter that has financial controls and active leadership should be
 able to meet the WMFs requirements (with the exception of tax
 deduction eligibility, based on jurisdiction); a chapter that does not
 puts both their funds and their public reputation at risk.  As the
 host of the fundraiser and the mark owner, the WMF shares in that risk
 - and it is both reasonable and necessary that the Foundation adhere
 to and require minimum standards of accountability in order to
 mitigate the risk of fraud, waste and abuse.

 If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when
 they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and
 organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering
 organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make
 sense.

Seriously, one does not go without the other. You can't really
organize to do something if you don't ever do it. Learning by doing is
the best school, and while we can't let people fail, surely we can
help chapters succeed, and not by assuming that they're unable to
start with, on the contrary.

Cheers,

Delphine

-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-27 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 08/27/11 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménardnotafi...@gmail.com:
 I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
 what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
 locally.
 Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the plan was,
 but then Ting clarified that no such decision had been made. I haven't
 seen anything since then about what the long-term system will be. I
 suspect everyone is concentrating on the next fundraiser rather that
 subsequent ones, and that's understandable. We do need to work out
 what we're going to do after this one sooner rather than later,
 though.


If Sue and Ting are so much at odds, maybe the rest of us should duck.

Long term funding is a matter of great interest to all of us, and it's 
discussion should be ongoing without regard to the current campaign.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-27 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 08/27/11 4:34 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
 On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net  wrote:
 If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when
 they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and
 organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering
 organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make
 sense.
 There's a difference between organizational support and organizational
 takeover. One possible solution might be to not allow chapters to
 participate in the global fundraiser unless they already have a suitable
 organization in place, but that could make it more difficult for the WMF
 to take a piece of the chapter's action.
 Which brings up the question: how do chapters ever get to the point of
 being organisationally ready if they never take a crack at doing
 fundraising on their own? Pleasing donors near you brings on an
 incomparable motivation to do great things and adapt our mission to
 what is expected and needed in a given region. Pleasing the Wikimedia
 Foundation somehow does not, seem to me to have the same potential.
 You know, the very old parable of giving a fish and teaching to
 fish...

Legal and financial arguments aside, if the perception grows that the 
WMF is trying to concentrate decision-making in San Francisco it is 
bound to inspire nationalist sentiments in many countries.  I really 
don't think it's prepared to handle that.

Ray


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-27 Thread Thomas Dalton

On 28 August 2011 01:19, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
 If Sue and Ting are so much at odds, maybe the rest of us should duck.

I think it was a misunderstanding on Sue's part, rather than any
actual disagreement.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-26 Thread Lodewijk

Hi Jimmy,

There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other
aspects to be considered, such as transparancy. However, imho fundraising
through chapters should remain the best way).

* Having one organization spreading around money is going to lead, sooner or
later, to that organization solely making decisions on what is important and
what is not. Centralized decision making, centralized prioritising.
* Forcing chapters to abide the WMF cyclus is centralization - an efficient
grant system likely includes fixed moments to ask for grants. Many chapters
currently still have a lot of flexibility to try out programs. If we would
not have had such flexibility, we would not have had Wiki Loves Monuments
for example - a lot of the budget part happened late in the execution
because 95% happens with volunteers.
* Asking grants automatically means language issues. Chapters not having
English as a mother tongue, *will* be more hesistant, no matter what help
you put in place. It will be a big effort, because more bottle necks
(English speakers) are introduced.
* Asking for external grants is much harder - many Dutch grant organizations
for example have a requirement that maximum x% of your budget can come from
grants (For example, Mondriaanstichting has a maximum of 40% grant money).
If we are forced to grant request to the foundation, that cuts off that
income source too.
* Not giving chapters access to donor data has many side effects - because
they will no longer be the organization responsible for communicating with
them. Sure, they would need to be responsible in that too, but denying them
access also means they cannot communicate their activities at the same time,
and get more volunteers involved from externally.

Maybe centralization is not your goal, but it is what you are doing. Having
a non-grant funding just makes an organization more independent, and makes
it more flexible and responsible. That organization is more likely to
develop itself professionally.

That does not leave out that there are many problems with the current
distribution system (50/50 etc) but that is a whole other discussion.

Lodewijk

2011/8/11 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com

 On 8/10/11 8:51 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
  I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being
  centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe
  will make chapters ineffective.

 Chapters are not being centralized.  I don't know how I can be more clear.

 The idea that the only thing that can make chapters really decentralized
 is the very narrow question of who actually processes the donation is
 mistaken.

 --Jimbo

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-26 Thread Nathan

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
 Hi Jimmy,

 There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
 to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
 take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other
 aspects to be considered, such as transparancy. However, imho fundraising
 through chapters should remain the best way).


Lodewijk,

I don't think the chapters are barred from all fundraising... At most,
they are at risk of not being able to participate in the global WMF
fundraiser. They can still raise funds on their own through other
methods. Maybe such other methods are more time consuming, difficult
and less lucrative... But there are innovative substitutes for the WMF
annual fundraiser, I'm sure.

In any case, the barriers to participation relate to the
organizational capacity of the chapters and the associated risks. A
chapter that has financial controls and active leadership should be
able to meet the WMFs requirements (with the exception of tax
deduction eligibility, based on jurisdiction); a chapter that does not
puts both their funds and their public reputation at risk.  As the
host of the fundraiser and the mark owner, the WMF shares in that risk
- and it is both reasonable and necessary that the Foundation adhere
to and require minimum standards of accountability in order to
mitigate the risk of fraud, waste and abuse.

If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when
they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and
organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering
organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make
sense.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen

Hoi,
There is fundraising together and there is fundraising perse. What is at
issue is that chapters are and have always been expected to disclose their
activities, providing financial statements. They are expected to be
accountable and many chapters have largely not been accountable.

The consequence is very much that the decentralisation is not working
because chapters are not committed to fulfil their obligations as is clear
from their actions. What is at stake is the involvement and the benefits of
chapters to the annual fundraiser. When chapters fund themselves in other
ways (as well), then my understanding is that they are welcome to that
particularly where they raise funds for particular named activities.

Wikimedia and any of the projects is a global affair and we need a global
movement that includes the WMF, the chapters, the communities, the
associated projects. We will and do benefit from being open transparent and
accountable. The people who fund us have to appreciate us as a global
movement and not as an organisation with tons of money hoarded by secretive
people, in the nooks and crannies of our movement.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 9 August 2011 09:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote:

  This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do
 with
  chapters?


 That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from
 their perspective, so recentralising fundraising.

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-13 Thread FT2

Basics:

   - WMF is a US charity. Funds collected by, or through its website (even
   if legally collected by affiliated organizations) will be exposed to
   US-style scrutiny and need to be able to withstand that for the reputation
   of the movement as a whole.
   - Wikimedia is a worldwide charity. People who donate locally want to
   know their funds are supporting Wikimedia and not vanishing into pockets or
   being wasted. Chapters not yet able to provide and demonstrate that
   assurance are a risk if they take funds that become unable to be accounted
   for or where the accounting is not transparent and independently verified.

   - It's easier to set good practices in place early on. It should have
   been a prequel to the agreement last year on direct payment/allocation, to
   ensure 6 figure cash from donors worldwide was only passed to chapters that
   were verified and agrred as being capable of responsibly handling it,
   criteria in place for that.  Not a catch up afterwards.  But good call to
   fix it now, at least.


WMF bears actual or perceived responsibility to ensure correct use of
collections via *.wikimedia.org wiki fundraisers and WMF efforts. Those
monies (as opposed to funds collected by local chapters' own efforts) are
donated to support the wider project goals. Because of this, WMF cannot
simply shrug it of or say they are allocated to outside body X so we have
no interest or role in checking their appropriate ultimate use.

It doesn't matter the legal relationship, WMF has a perceived responsibility
to live up to, that even if the funds are used at chapter discretion, it
should be clear they are being reasonably and completely used for the
mission.

Alternative ways to approach decentralization might have included a ramp-up
over a 2-3 year period, or funds transfer on a requisition basis, allowing
each local organization to be gradually established and mature (which takes
time).   But better late than never. It would have been much harder and more
painful to correct a chapter that was difficult in those areas, once
established a few years down the line.

At least criteria are to be put in place now than never.  For chapters in
good order they should not be an issue.

FT2


On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:


 Hoi,
 There is fundraising together and there is fundraising perse. What is at
 issue is that chapters are and have always been expected to disclose their
 activities, providing financial statements. They are expected to be
 accountable and many chapters have largely not been accountable.

 The consequence is very much that the decentralisation is not working
 because chapters are not committed to fulfil their obligations as is clear
 from their actions. What is at stake is the involvement and the benefits of
 chapters to the annual fundraiser. When chapters fund themselves in other
 ways (as well), then my understanding is that they are welcome to that
 particularly where they raise funds for particular named activities.

 Wikimedia and any of the projects is a global affair and we need a global
 movement that includes the WMF, the chapters, the communities, the
 associated projects. We will and do benefit from being open transparent and
 accountable. The people who fund us have to appreciate us as a global
 movement and not as an organisation with tons of money hoarded by secretive
 people, in the nooks and crannies of our movement.
 Thanks,
  GerardM

 On 9 August 2011 09:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do
  with
   chapters?
 
 
  That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from
  their perspective, so recentralising fundraising.
 
  ___
  foundation-l mailing list
  foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
 
 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-12 Thread phoebe ayers

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote:

 On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
  Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The
  Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles.
  To my mind decentralization is important raises a whole bunch of
  other important questions: is decentralization more important than
  efficiency as a working principle?
 I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity of
 tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization should
 help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to maximize
 revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't
 mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to sacrifice
 a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other value we
 think is important like decentralization.
  One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that
  there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and
  haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus have little to no
  money to support program work. Though mostly outside the scope of the
  Board's letter, this is for instance one part of our model that I
  would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere should have better
  access to resources to get things done. On this specific point, I do
  disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed grants program [and
  it's true we're not there yet, but want to be soon] could actually
  help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money needed for
  program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to develop the
  (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly fundraise
  with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns.
 I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a
 well-developed grants program. In many contexts, as grants programs
 develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly
 complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, it
 may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we are
 trying to move away from.

 --Michael Snow


Fair point. By well-developed I just meant something that works well.
One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the idea
of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see the
expansion of the WMDE program, as well.

-- phoebe
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-12 Thread Birgitte SB

rom: phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote:

 On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
  Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The
  Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles.
  To my mind decentralization is important raises a whole bunch of
  other important questions: is decentralization more important than
  efficiency as a working principle?
 I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity of
 tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization should
 help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to maximize
 revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't
 mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to sacrifice
 a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other value we
 think is important like decentralization.
  One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that
  there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and
  haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus have little to no
  money to support program work. Though mostly outside the scope of the
  Board's letter, this is for instance one part of our model that I
  would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere should have better
  access to resources to get things done. On this specific point, I do
  disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed grants program [and
  it's true we're not there yet, but want to be soon] could actually
  help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money needed for
  program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to develop the
  (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly fundraise
  with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns.
 I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a
 well-developed grants program. In many contexts, as grants programs
 develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly
 complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, it
 may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we are
 trying to move away from.

 --Michael Snow

Fair point. By well-developed I just meant something that works well.
One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the idea
of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see the
expansion of the WMDE program, as well.

-- phoebe
I can't help but point out that is begging the question. [1] It is a logical 
fallacy to say in answer to concerns that a grants program won't work well 
that you are supporting well-developed grants program (defined as something 
that works well).  It is just wishful thinking.

BirgitteSB

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-12 Thread phoebe ayers

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:






 
 rom: phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:13 AM
 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
 
 On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com
 wrote:
 
  On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
   Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The
   Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles.
   To my mind decentralization is important raises a whole bunch of
   other important questions: is decentralization more important than
   efficiency as a working principle?
  I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity of
  tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization should
  help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to maximize
  revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't
  mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to sacrifice
  a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other value we
  think is important like decentralization.
   One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that
   there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and
   haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus have little to no
   money to support program work. Though mostly outside the scope of the
   Board's letter, this is for instance one part of our model that I
   would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere should have better
   access to resources to get things done. On this specific point, I do
   disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed grants program [and
   it's true we're not there yet, but want to be soon] could actually
   help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money needed for
   program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to develop the
   (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly fundraise
   with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns.
  I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a
  well-developed grants program. In many contexts, as grants programs
  develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly
  complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, it
  may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we are
  trying to move away from.
 
  --Michael Snow
 
 
 Fair point. By well-developed I just meant something that works well.
 One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the
 idea
 of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see
 the
 expansion of the WMDE program, as well.
 
 -- phoebe
 I can't help but point out that is begging the question. [1] It is a
 logical fallacy to say in answer to concerns that a grants program won't
 work well that you are supporting well-developed grants program (defined as
 something that works well).  It is just wishful thinking.

 BirgitteSB


 [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


Sorry, I didn't intend to beg the question. Maybe I misread Michael's
comment. I thought he was saying that a high-overhead grants program, such
as many granting organizations end up with after a few years, would not be
helpful. My response is that we should strive to build a functional
low-overhead grants program. Yes, that is wishful thinking, since it's an
aspirational goal, but it's also in response to concern over a hypothetical
future... I think it's totally fair to think about what kind of criteria we
would like to see in a grants program generally (e.g. low overhead, open to
all, etc.), since the program will need to be expanded quite a bit if it
covers funding many more chapters and groups. Now if people don't think it's
*possible* to build a low-overhead grants program, that's a fair point :)

best,
phoebe
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

2011-08-12 Thread Robin McCain

Perhaps we might reflect on all the mistakes made by far older global 
NPOs - the Catholic Church and all the younger proselytizing churches 
are good examples.The mission has always been the dissemination of 
knowledge (of a specific sort), so it has experiences that might be 
helpful - what not to do, etc.

They've always had wealthy and poor locales. A large part of their 
efforts have been devoted to raising money from the wealthy to fund 
programs for the poor. They all have had to learn how to meet the legal 
obligations of whichever states they are located and have evolved 
systems to manage their money - some of which work better than others.


On 8/12/2011 7:21 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com
   wrote:
   
 On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
   Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. 
  The
   Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of 
  principles.
   To my mind decentralization is important raises a whole bunch 
  of
   other important questions: is decentralization more important 
  than
   efficiency as a working principle?
 I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity 
  of
 tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization 
  should
 help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to 
  maximize
 revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't
 mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to 
  sacrifice
 a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other 
  value we
 think is important like decentralization.
   One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was 
  that
   there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and
   haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus have little 
  to no
   money to support program work. Though mostly outside the scope 
  of the
   Board's letter, this is for instance one part of our model that 
  I
   would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere should have 
  better
   access to resources to get things done. On this specific point, 
  I do
   disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed grants 
  program [and
   it's true we're not there yet, but want to be soon] could 
  actually
   help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money needed for
   program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to develop 
  the
   (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly 
  fundraise
   with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns.
 I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a
 well-developed grants program. In many contexts, as grants 
  programs
 develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly
 complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, 
  it
 may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we 
  are
 trying to move away from.
   
 --Michael Snow
   
   
   Fair point. By well-developed I just meant something that works 
  well.
   One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the
   idea
   of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see
   the
   expansion of the WMDE program, as well.
   
   -- phoebe
   I can't help but point out that is begging the question. [1] It is a
   logical fallacy to say in answer to concerns that a grants program won't
   work well that you are supporting well-developed grants program (defined 
  as
   something that works well).  It is just wishful thinking.
 
   BirgitteSB
 
 
   [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
 
 
 Sorry, I didn't intend to beg the question. Maybe I misread Michael's
 comment. I thought he was saying that a high-overhead grants program, such
 as many granting organizations end up with after a few years, would not be
 helpful. My response is that we should strive to build a functional
 low-overhead grants program. Yes, that is wishful thinking, since it's an
 aspirational goal, but it's also in response to concern over a hypothetical
 future... I think it's totally fair to think about what kind of criteria we
 would like to see in a grants program generally (e.g. low overhead, open to
 all, etc.), since the program will need to be expanded quite a bit if it
 covers funding many more chapters and groups. Now if people don't think it's
 *possible*  to build a low-overhead grants program, that's a fair point:)

 best,
 phoebe

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

You are right!  TYPO!

On 8/10/11 6:14 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Jimmy Walesjwa...@wikia-inc.com  wrote:
 It would be, if that's what it were about.  But I can say with
 confidence that at the board meeting, no one spoke about any ideas even
 remotely similar to this, and I can't think of a single board member who
 disagrees one bit with the idea that chapters should be directed or
 controlled in a top-down fashion as franchises or anything similar.

 OK, I've read this sentence five times now, and this is what I read:

 Board members agree that chapters should be directed or controlled in
 a top-down fashion as franchises

 I think there is a double negative here that is saying the opposite of
 what you meant to say.

 Should not the sentence be:
 I can't think of a single board member who *agrees* one bit with the
 idea that chapters should be directed or controlled in a top-down
 fashion as franchises or anything similar?

 Or has my English played a trick on me?

 Thanks,

 Delphine

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 8/10/11 7:22 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
  As for the rest I encourage you to exercise your
 moral duty by helping the chapters fulfill the reporting
 requirements, implement the financial controls, and operate
 transparently. You have been through this all before.  You were the
 chairman of the board when WMF was struggling with all of these
 items, so why not use your experience directing WMF through being out
 of compliance with such things to mentor those chapter which are struggling?

Of course.  My past experiences are what allow me to approach these 
difficult issues without blaming anyone, and I think that the chapters 
should not feel blamed.

Growing from a barely functioning chapter - usually just a group of 
people who made a proposal and did all the hard work to get through the 
chapter approval process - into a successful, effective nonprofit 
organization with strong financial controls, transparency, training, 
oversight is really hard work.  Delphine has spoken eloquently about it.

A model which dumps too much money/responsibility onto a chapter before 
they are ready for it is not a valid service to anyone.  A model which 
allows chapters to go off the rails with little or no recourse other 
than some kind of disastrous legal battle or something would also not be 
a valid service to anyone.

When I look at the track record of many chapters to date, I see that 
we've asked too much, too soon, and it's not causing happiness.

I think the new approach, if thoughtfully pursued with lots of 
good-faith input and collaboration by all, can really make a huge 
difference.

--Jimbo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters

On 8/10/11 8:51 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
 I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being
 centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe
 will make chapters ineffective.

Chapters are not being centralized.  I don't know how I can be more clear.

The idea that the only thing that can make chapters really decentralized 
is the very narrow question of who actually processes the donation is 
mistaken.

--Jimbo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters