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 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
