On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Birgitte SB <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >________________________________ > >rom: phoebe ayers <[email protected]> > >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[email protected]> > >Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:13 AM > >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters > > > >On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow <[email protected] > >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 [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
