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