Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[John Vandenberg]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:31 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 6 August 2011 00:26, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>
>> And in doing so, the WMF wont have the benefit of the donations that
>> are made because the donor responds well to the fact they know in
>> advance that the money goes to a local organisation - an organisation
>> which is accountable to the local regulatory system.
>
>
> I know that some people do donate because of the local factor. Others
> donate because they want to give money to "Wikipedia". Do we have
> actual numbers (e.g. survey results) as to proportions?

These are only preliminary numbers, but I think it is clear that local
chapters are receiving better fundraising growth than the WMF is in
the US.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:John_Vandenberg/Fundraising_growth

-- 
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Michael Snow]

On 8/6/2011 4:00 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> On 8/6/11 1:36 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
>> On 8/5/2011 4:26 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snow
>>> wrote:
 .. Honestly, I must say that it
 is a colossal disappointment to find that with all the posts I've seen
 both here and on internal-l, nobody has yet made a single edit to the
 talk page on Meta where the letter was posted. Doesn't anybody here know
 how to use a wiki?
>>> Michael, the board announcement is not a good way to start a conversation.
>>> Perhaps it is you who doesn't know how to use a wiki. :P
>> That's funny, it seems to have started quite a bit of conversation. I
>> just wanted to point out that we have these recurring arguments about
>> the "right" mailing list to use, when we keep ignoring the arguably more
>> open and transparent forum we're all familiar with.
> A (very) significant part of the discussion was held in face to face for
> all those who were at Wikimania.
An excellent proof in support of why it was urgent to get the letter out 
now. I'm sorry I couldn't be there to participate.

--Michael Snow


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Florence Devouard]

On 8/6/11 1:36 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 8/5/2011 4:26 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snow   wrote:
>>> .. Honestly, I must say that it
>>> is a colossal disappointment to find that with all the posts I've seen
>>> both here and on internal-l, nobody has yet made a single edit to the
>>> talk page on Meta where the letter was posted. Doesn't anybody here know
>>> how to use a wiki?
>> Michael, the board announcement is not a good way to start a conversation.
>> Perhaps it is you who doesn't know how to use a wiki. :P
> That's funny, it seems to have started quite a bit of conversation. I
> just wanted to point out that we have these recurring arguments about
> the "right" mailing list to use, when we keep ignoring the arguably more
> open and transparent forum we're all familiar with.
>
> --Michael Snow

A (very) significant part of the discussion was held in face to face for 
all those who were at Wikimania.

Flo


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 6, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Hello MZM, thanks for taking a start at new pages to illustrate the
> discussion on Meta.
> 
> MZMcBride  writes:
> .
> 
> 
>> Anyone who thinks that this particular issue
>> is outside of this list's scope is insane. Using internal-l as a substitute
>> for an open discussion isn't appropriate or in line with Wikimedia's values.
> 
> Internal-l is, among other things, a place for chapters to discuss
> chapter-internal topics in a slightly quieter forum.  I would prefer
> for it to be a world-readable group-writeable list, since I see few
> reasons for truly private discussions about movementwide issues... but
> as long as we have internal-l as currently designed, this topic seems
> appropriate there too.


That wasn't the design of internal-l, and I hope no-one misinterpts your mail 
to think this. Internal-l as it was designed could never have been made 
publicly readable. If it has quietly morphed into something other than what it 
was originally advertised as, such things can happen. To be completely honest, 
if I had not been rather wary of the prospect of it not living up to it's 
design at the time I would have asked to join.  I really don't enjoy telling 
people they are fools, yet I feel like coward when I stay silent. So I just I 
tend to avoid forums where I expect a lot of foolishness. But I can't have much 
sympathy for chapters feeling bullied by WMF when they only address the issues 
important to them in a manner so conductive to manipulation.  

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 6, 2011, at 2:41 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Hello Birgitte,
> 
> Thank you for these comments and edits/suggestions.  [all: please also
> post suggestions on Meta. most people are not subscribed to this
> list.]
> 
> This Board letter was published on short notice.  Once it was clear
> that the issue should be raised and discussed this year, we wanted to
> share our thoughts immediately.  There is room to improve these ideas,
> and suggestions are welcome.
> 
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:07 AM,   wrote:
> 
>>> ** The organization's current financial resources are not enough to fund
>>> proposed program work.
>> 
>> This would be best to be written up as only applicable so long as WMF's 
>> current financial resources are not enough to fund proposed program work 
>> using the same criteria.
> 
> Perhaps.  A regional organization can often do things more
> effectively; and there is also value in some level of decentralized
> and duplicated effort, to avoid single points of failure.


I don't think I was clear on this.  The idea seems to be that a chapter that is 
fully funded shouldn't participate in fundraising until it proposes how to 
expand it's program work.  My suggestion is that makes sense only when the 
chapter's lack of participation doesn't result in the funds going directly to a 
fully funded WMF that hasn't expanded it's program work in the way they are 
asking the chapter.  The main point of this suggestion is to keep the criteria 
sane. If the criteria used to evaluate a chapter were applied to WMF and they 
both fail the criteria this becomes inapplicable.

BirgitteSB
> 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Christophe Henner]

Hi,

I've got an awkward feeling toward this whole thread. I'll try to explain why.

For years, every single discussion has been WMF versus the chapters.
few years ago it kinda made sense as we had so different issues and we
were trying to codify the relationship between our organizations
through agreements.

But now, we've come to a point we cannot afford anymore to have this
duality between WMF and Chapters. The movement raised around 30M$ last
year, more and more chapters are raising more than 100 K$. At this
point our needs are the same, we need that every single organizations
fundraising to be able to manage and steward correctly the donations.

4 years ago, a chapter screwed up, it concerned, at top, few thousand
donations. Now days, a chapter screws up it concerns ten of thousand
of donations. And we can't afford that. At all.

So, I guess we all agree that all organization raising money in our
movement must :
* be able to do useful "stuff"
* possess the framework to handle thousand of donations
* respect the accountability standards and criteria stated in the board letter

So as Liam said (BTW Craig I'm a living cliché... so I'm more into
wine but thanks :D), for me the letters is huge step forward. We now
have kind of a ladder regarding fundraising. We now what's on bottom
(non fundraising) and what's on top (chapters meeting all the needs
and fundraising 100% of the money in their country). That's awesome.

But, we now have an issue. As the movement grows, more and more
organizations join us. And those organizations don't have the luck we
(older wikimedia organizations) had... an organic learning curve. We
grew with the projects basically. And so we were able to learn step by
step to handle more and more donors and money. And in fact, we're
still learning.

But new chapters are cursed with the success of the project. If they
dive into the 100% fundraising within their country they don't have
this learning curve.

Remember of the ladder, we know what's at the bottom, what's on top...
now we have to figure the steps in the middle to artificially recreate
the learning curve we had.

I'm voluntarily not addressing some of the legitimate concerns
regarding the coming fundraiser as I think that most of the concerns
are due to either poor wording or lack of detailed information.

Anyway, whatever your concerns are, we have to stop thinking us Vs.
them. We're all in the same boat and have to start working all
together.

All the best,

Christophe

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Chris Keating]

The more I read the Board's letter the more difficult I find it to
interpret. There's one reading on which it says only a few (albeit
important) things that aren't already in the 2011 Fundraising Agreements.
There is another reading in which it says that actually no chapters will be
participating in this Autumn's fundraiser, as actually none of them have hit
every single deadline from the 2010 agreement. (For the sake of balance -
the WMF also missed one of its own deadlines ;-) ) So thank you Phoebe for
your insight on the Board's thinking, but more insight would be good.

However there are four particular points I would mention:

1) *Transparency and accountability by chapters*. I wholeheartedly agree
that Chapters' performance in terms of reporting and accountability has not
been great on the whole. There also seem to be a number of chapters who
participated in the 2010 Fundraiser for whom it is very difficult to find
any indication of how much has been raised during 2011 or what the money has
been spent on. Simply in my role as a member of the community, this is
concerning, and I agree that the Foundation board needs to take this issue
seriously.

2) *New chapters and funds*.  I also agree that a small, new chapter has
better things to do than spend its time working out how to handle online
payments and hold donor data. There is in any case a threshold in the
Fundraising Agreement on how much a chapter can seek to raise if it is
taking part in the fundraiser for the first time -  $50,000 if I remember
rightly. To be honest the prospect of a $50,000 grant from the Foundation
for much less work than participating in the fundraiser would be attractive.
(Though of course this alternative grant system isn't actually set up, which
makes it difficult to examine it)

3) *Tax-deductibility.* There is a significant change in the Foundation
board's language between the Fundraising Agreement - which says chapters
must be tax-deductible non-profits "where applicable and obtainable" - and
the language in this letter. Some chapters operate in countries which have
no concept of tax-deductibility. Some operate in countries where it's
impossible to reconcile tax-deductibility with being a Chapter. I think it
would be a very serious mistake for the Foundation to unilaterally decide
that no chapter in one of these countries will ever participate in the
Fundraiser. If that is what the Foundation have decided then I think that is
going far beyond the action the Foundation needs to take to exercise its
duty of care towards donors. I also think that it would fundamentally alter
the relationship between the Foundation and the chapters, and not in a good
way.

4) *The value of donors.* The Foundation talks a lot about donor
stewardship, but stewardship goes far beyond accountability and
transparency. What we as a movement ought to be doing is building an ongoing
relationship with the people who are generous enough to give us money, and
sharing the Wikimedia vision with them. This means having the kind of donor
communication programme that almost any nonprofit can tell you about.
Currently I don't believe the Foundation tries to do this - it ought to -
but I think it is actually something which is much better done by chapters
where those chapters have the resources to do so.

The benefits of this kind of "active stewardship" are several...
- more people who "get" Wikimedia rather than just responding to a banner
they see on Wikipedia
- more recurring income for the movement not linked to the annual fundraiser
(all nonprofits love recurring income because it's consistent and reliable -
though the mechanics of actually giving recurring gifts are quite specific
to individual nations)
- outreach - when WMUK sent an email to our 2010 donors a month or two ago,
we got dozens of responses from people interested in getting involved (even
though we hadn't really asked!) - including one from a curator at a key
museum we were trying to get links to for our GLAM outreach programme.

So basically our donors are a massive and under-used resource for the
movement in both financial and non-financial terms. I get the impression
that some people think the only benefit of Chapters handling donor data is
that donors get tax receipts. That is definitely not the case and it if
that's the only thing we care about then that is a massive missed
opportunity for the movement.

Regards,

Chris Keating
User:The Land
Wikimedia UK Board member & fundraising lead
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Samuel Klein]

Hello MZM, thanks for taking a start at new pages to illustrate the
discussion on Meta.

MZMcBride  writes:

> I fail to see how violating the community's principles of transparency and
> accountability by keeping everything on a non-public list is any better. I
> just hope nobody's discussing anything too private there...

There are dozens of posts in the relevant threat on internal-l.
Nothing especially private; I expect it will all be discussed here on
f-l as well.

I will publish any of my own thoughts in foundation-l threads or on meta.


> Anyone who thinks that this particular issue
> is outside of this list's scope is insane. Using internal-l as a substitute
> for an open discussion isn't appropriate or in line with Wikimedia's values.

Internal-l is, among other things, a place for chapters to discuss
chapter-internal topics in a slightly quieter forum.  I would prefer
for it to be a world-readable group-writeable list, since I see few
reasons for truly private discussions about movementwide issues... but
as long as we have internal-l as currently designed, this topic seems
appropriate there too.

SJ

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Samuel Klein]

Hello Birgitte,

Thank you for these comments and edits/suggestions.  [all: please also
post suggestions on Meta. most people are not subscribed to this
list.]

This Board letter was published on short notice.  Once it was clear
that the issue should be raised and discussed this year, we wanted to
share our thoughts immediately.  There is room to improve these ideas,
and suggestions are welcome.

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:07 AM,   wrote:

>> ** The organization's current financial resources are not enough to fund
>> proposed program work.
>
> This would be best to be written up as only applicable so long as WMF's 
> current financial resources are not enough to fund proposed program work 
> using the same criteria.

Perhaps.  A regional organization can often do things more
effectively; and there is also value in some level of decentralized
and duplicated effort, to avoid single points of failure.

>> ** 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.
>
> [This] should be a trade... with WMF providing the chapter with the 
> equivalent paperwork
> and the chapter doing it's own fiduciary duty by seriously reviewing it 
> annually and of
> course vice versa.

Yes.  I would love to see Chapters or other movement entities making
specific suggestions to the Foundation about how to improve its own
transparency, or align its spending better with our [shared] mission
and the messages [we all] use to attract donors.

> Best case scenario is that each chapter/WMF can view this not only as an 
> opportunity to ensure > that their current partner is being held accountable 
> to these shared principles, but also as an
> opportunity to lay the groundwork to see that these principles will by upheld 
> by the heirs of
> both organizations whoever they might be.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes :-)

> I would argue all involved hurt the development of *successful* new chapters 
> by
> setting up such perverse incentives.  I would urge all involved this time to 
> keep in
> mind the chapters-yet-to-exist and all current 
> parties-under-unknown-future-leadership
> rather than only thinking of securing an agreement for your 
> party-as-it-currently-exists.

+1
It is certainly important to have a system that could survive the
foundation or any individual chapter being coopted for a time by
leadership misaligned with our mission.

Sam.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[John Vandenberg]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:55 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> ...
>
> We are quite concerned that some chapters who have signed fundraising
> agreements (now and in the past) have actually been unable to live up their
> requirements of reporting on time and meeting other needs; however, we
> expect all parties -- the WMF and the chapters -- to follow the agreements
> that have been signed. (If parts of the agreement are not followed on either
> side, we also expect that the agreement will be invalidated).  We also
> expect all parties to take into account the principles we lay out here, the
> very most important one of which is:  "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."

How does tax-deductibility status achieve that?  Why the sudden change
in the wording, or in our previously agreed understanding on that
aspect.
That wording change is what the board is using to invalidate most of
the chapters agreements which have been signed.

Did the board receive a report from the WMF staff who attended the
Fundraising Summit?
If you have, you will know that the main impediment to WMAU becoming
tax-deductible is that large chunks of money are sent from Australia
to the US.  We cant fix this with the previous or current agreement,
which was written by WMF.  How will removing WMAU from the fundraiser
fix the tax-deductible problem?  It wont.  Tax-deductibility is being
used to achieve your other laudable motives.

Btw, the WMF is not in a strong position when it talks about
transparency and the messages it sends to donors.

> And we appreciate that many chapters (the majority of which don't fundraise
> at all, in fact) either cannot or are unable to meet various parts of these
> principles or the current agreement. We don't want to leave anyone stranded;
> to that end, we are committed to increasing and expanding grants for chapter
> operations.

We have WMF staff, bottom to top, telling us that we are now not
compliant to the agreement due to "problems" that the WMF has known
about for a long time, and is only now raising.  Knowing these issues,
the WMF hounded us to sign the new agreement.

I appreciate the gesture that you (the board) wont leave us stranded,
however I would prefer that the WMF stops being a bully and accepts
that this is not how you do change management.
The chapters agreement gives the chapter a reasonable amount of
control over the messages sent to donors, and that was a critical
component of the fundraiser here in Australia, and it heavily
contributed to our successes in outreach.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[phoebe ayers]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Michael Snow  wrote:

> On 8/5/2011 7:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
> > John's e-mail reads like a suggestion that the Foundation negotiated
> > in bad faith. I hope this isn't the case, although the references made
> > to consulting with outside auditors and meetings of the Audit
> > Committee suggest this decision may have been conceived prior to the
> > Fundraising Summit.
> The audit committee met and discussed this in July, so after the
> fundraising summit. I don't know the exact timeline of everything that
> went into this, but at that point it was my sense that it was only just
> coming together as an actual decision, if you will. That's not to say
> that chapter accountability and reporting, particularly around finances,
> has never come up as a concern before.
>

Yes.

I am going to send this note to both f-l and internal-l; forgive me,
everyone who gets duplications. As to the question of "why internal" --
internal-l has a policy that at least a couple representatives from each and
every chapter are added to it automatically, along with all wmf staff and
board members, so it is the appropriate venue to make an announcement
regarding chapters. The discussions there are not so much confidential
(though they could be, as it's a closed list) as of focused to chapters (but
perhaps not to others).  It is of course also appropriate to discuss in
public, which is why I posted the letter to meta and f-l.

All that said, a note on timing -- yes, this came together quite recently,
and was spurred by a report from our audit committee. The board treasurer
Stu West, who chairs that committee, then brought the issue to the whole
board at our most recent in-person meeting -- three days ago here in Haifa.
We had input and reports from Barry and Moushira about funds raised to date,
current accounts, and reporting practices of the chapters, as well as the
state of the current fundraising agreements; we are of course aware that
people are thinking about the fundraiser now (as is the wmf, of course!)

Our issue in timing our discussion and decision was to find a balance
between appropriate notification and negotiation time with all of the
chapters, and meeting as soon as possible what the Board of Trustees sees as
its legal and financial obligations to safeguard money that comes in through
WMF-trademarked websites. That is the crux of the matter for us -- not to
comment on chapter effectiveness or governance or how great everyone's work
on the fundraiser is (which goes well beyond processing money for both the
WMF and the chapters).

Following the board discussion at the meeting, we drafted the letter you
have read, in a lengthy and often difficult process -- all of the issues
that have been raised here were thought about, and more. At that point we
had a choice. Wait, talk to the chapters, and get even closer to the
fundraiser before sending it out? Or send it out now while we are at
Wikimania and at least have a chance to talk to some chapters in person? We
chose the latter, and I am glad about that, because we are indeed short on
time.

That's what happened. As to the implications, I would encourage all of the
fundraising chapters to read this part:
"In particular, we expect all parties to live up to current fundraising
agreements including full compliance with all reporting deadlines."

We are quite concerned that some chapters who have signed fundraising
agreements (now and in the past) have actually been unable to live up their
requirements of reporting on time and meeting other needs; however, we
expect all parties -- the WMF and the chapters -- to follow the agreements
that have been signed. (If parts of the agreement are not followed on either
side, we also expect that the agreement will be invalidated).  We also
expect all parties to take into account the principles we lay out here, the
very most important one of which is:  "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."

And we appreciate that many chapters (the majority of which don't fundraise
at all, in fact) either cannot or are unable to meet various parts of these
principles or the current agreement. We don't want to leave anyone stranded;
to that end, we are committed to increasing and expanding grants for chapter
operations.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Michael Snow]

On 8/5/2011 7:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
> John's e-mail reads like a suggestion that the Foundation negotiated
> in bad faith. I hope this isn't the case, although the references made
> to consulting with outside auditors and meetings of the Audit
> Committee suggest this decision may have been conceived prior to the
> Fundraising Summit.
The audit committee met and discussed this in July, so after the 
fundraising summit. I don't know the exact timeline of everything that 
went into this, but at that point it was my sense that it was only just 
coming together as an actual decision, if you will. That's not to say 
that chapter accountability and reporting, particularly around finances, 
has never come up as a concern before. It's enough of a longstanding 
issue that if you think about it, it shouldn't be a real surprise that 
the board would eventually need to give input on it. If there's a 
surprise, it's more that it's hard to predict what will drive the board 
to act on a particular issue at a particular moment. (I'm not exactly 
sure the board can predict it, either. I would have liked it as chair if 
agendas were fully predictable six months in advance, but things don't 
quite work out that way.)

--Michael Snow


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Craig Franklin]

Just to follow on from what John Vandenberg said, WMAU's fundraising report,
including all the facts and figures, was posted way way back at the
beginning of February.  While there were some minor differences of opinion
between WMF and WMAU about some of the recommendations made, there was no
concerns raised on the WMF side about the actual numbers, which were the
important part.

You can read the report here:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/images/6/66/Fundraising_Report.pdf

I'll also echo what's been said earlier that Wikimedia Australia is
extremely dismayed and disappointed by this latest development.  While we
agree that transparency and accountability are very important, so is
providing a stable financial and regulatory environment for chapters and
other groups to operate in, so that time and effort can go into programme
work rather than arguing about issues such as this.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin
Treasurer - Wikimedia Australia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Nathan]

John's e-mail reads like a suggestion that the Foundation negotiated
in bad faith. I hope this isn't the case, although the references made
to consulting with outside auditors and meetings of the Audit
Committee suggest this decision may have been conceived prior to the
Fundraising Summit. Perhaps the letter is just imperfectly drafted,
since it does seem somewhat contradictory: unilaterally laying out new
criteria for receiving funds on the one hand, and stating several
times its commitment to the current agreement on the other.

I hope a board member can comment on a few questions this letter
raises... When was the decision to rewrite the criteria for funding
first considered? What is the predicted scope of the near-term impact
of this letter? Is it thought that a significant number of
organizations will lose the opportunity to participate in the
fundraiser this year? Did the board become aware of financial
impropriety that led it to make these changes, and if so will this be
revealed publicly at some point?

I'm in favor generally of better controls and accountability for
organizations cooperating with the WMF fundraiser, and I've been
critical of grant-making decisions in the past... However, it does
seem odd for the WMF to repudiate terms agreed upon only weeks ago -
and in a letter, no less, not a formal resolution.

Nathan




On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:26 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> Michael, the board announcement is not a good way to start a conversation.
> Perhaps it is you who doesn't know how to use a wiki. :P
>
> It is a pronouncement, and talks about "criteria" which are not in the
> agreement the chapters recently signed.
>
> If the letter talked about improvements to be made to the next
> agreement, you would have a lot of positive activity around the
> letter.  The recently signed agreement covers this financial year, and
> *only* this next financial year.  Now is a good time to start working
> on the next agreement, so that we can slowly work through all the
> issues related to 35+ countries with a chapter.
>
> If the WMF wanted to make changes to the current agreement, and
> recognised that late changes are going to be difficult, we could work
> with you make some important changes which raise the bar but do not
> adversely and unnecessarily exclude anyone who has already signed the
> agreement.  To begin with, chapters would be wanting a tiered approach
> to these criteria.  For example, tax-deductibility does not make sense
> for a small chapter, and it is usually impossible for small
> organisations to obtain this.  It is silly to exclude a chapter on
> this basis - the WMF cant become tax-deductible in these countries
> anyway, so there is no possible benefit to the donor if the chapter is
> excluded from the fundraising process because they are not
> tax-deductible.  Until the chapter becomes tax-deductible, there is no
> possibility for the donor to obtain a tax deduction.  In some
> countries it is very inappropriate to fundraise without government
> approval, so the WMF shouldnt be fundraising in these countries
> anyway.  Chapters receiving significant amounts of dollars should use
> those funds to pursue the often difficult process of
> tax-deductibility.  There are only a few chapters who fall into this
> bracket, yet WMF is trying to reduce all chapters to wikipedia clubs.
> And in doing so, the WMF wont have the benefit of the donations that
> are made because the donor responds well to the fact they know in
> advance that the money goes to a local organisation - an organisation
> which is accountable to the local regulatory system.
>
> This letter comes on the heels of WMF staff privately contacting
> individual on chapter boards over the last week and telling them that
> they are breaking the fundraising agreement, after the chapters have
> sought qualified opinions on the matter and signed the agreement on
> that basis.  Now we know why.  Perhaps I should post those private
> conversations to the wiki so we can use the wiki to discuss the real
> problem: how the WMF is implementing the improvement.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:32 AM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> 
> ==Design principles==*
> 
> Our design principles for improving the fundraising model are:
> 
> * We are deeply committed to decentralized pursuit of our mission and to
> supporting the long-term sustainability of chapters and other movement
> partners.
> 
> * Because of its role as operator of the websites, the Foundation has to be
> satisfied that any organization directly receiving donor funds will treat
> them with an appropriately high level of care and transparency.
> 
> * 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.

These three should be uncontroversial.

> ** The organization's current financial resources are not enough to fund
> proposed program work.

This would be best to be written up as only applicable so long as WMF's current 
financial resources are not enough to fund proposed program work using the same 
criteria.

> ** 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.

This is all rather ambiguous.  But once it is hammered into something concrete 
it should a trade of assurances with WMF providing the chapter with the 
equivalent paperwork and the chapter doing it's own fiduciary duty by seriously 
reviewing it annually and of course vice versa.

> * The donation process should clearly disclose basic facts about the
> organization receiving the donation.


Uncontroversial

> * The Foundation is committed to a grants program to continue to provide
> funds to those who can most effectively pursue our mission.

Ambiguous but if I negotiating on the chapter-side I would see it written into 
the contract that additional money (above the historical 50%) passed through my 
organizations hands to WMF be earmarked for grants and that the overall amount 
awarded in WMF grants must be at least x% greater than the amount earmarked for 
grants.


> 
> *==Next steps==*
> 
> These concerns need to be substantially addressed prior to the start of the
> 2011 fundraiser. In particular, we expect all parties to live up to current
> fundraising agreements including full compliance with all reporting
> deadlines.
> 
> We appreciate that some chapters have already started working on their
> budgets assuming that they would participate as payment processors in the
> 2011 fundraiser, but may not be able to meet the new criteria outlined
> above. The Foundation will work with these chapters to follow through on the
> principles of the current Fundraising Agreement to provide the necessary
> funds to continue their programmatic work and to meet their operational
> needs.
> 
> The Foundation will significantly expand its grants program, and should work
> closely with the Audit Committee to continue improving the controls and
> disclosures around grants.

Reviewing these agreements is the right thing to do. Since both chapter and WMF 
share nearly identical principles and goals there should be little difficulty 
negotiating the finer points to everyone's satisfaction.  Best case scenario is 
that each chapter/WMF can view this not only as an opportunity to ensure that 
their current partner is being held accountable to these shared principles, but 
also as an opportunity to lay the groundwork to see that these principles will 
by upheld by the heirs of both organizations whoever they might be. Worst case 
scenario this is viewed by some or all parties as an exercise in defensiveness. 
 But it is an issue that will only be harder to resolve to everyone's 
satisfaction the more time passes. 

The elephant in the room is the chapter that will never exist till the existing 
parties hammer things out into something that could feasible if it were applied 
to the funds of the entire fundraising drive.  One could argue that the 
chapters negotiating the original agreement were given too much in recieving 
50% with so little accounting required. One could argue that that chapters 
negotiating the original agreement gave up too much by not requiring anything 
of WMF . And I would argue all involved hurt the development of *successful* 
new chapters by setting up such perverse incentives.  I would urge all involved 
this time to keep in mind the chapters-yet-to-exist and all current 
parties-under-unknown-future-leadership rather than only thinking of securing 
an agreement for your party-as-it-currently-exists.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 5, 2011, at 6:45 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
.
> 
> People bring up the forum because this (foundation-l) is the central list
> for the Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who thinks that this particular issue
> is outside of this list's scope is insane. Using internal-l as a substitute
> for an open discussion isn't appropriate or in line with Wikimedia's values.
> 
> 

+1

I don't cultivate information the way I can only imagine MZMcBride does. So I 
have no reason, outside such insinuations, to believe that internal-l is being 
used for general discussion instead of just specific contract talk and similar 
threads requiring confidentiality. And such winks are so often misleading by 
way of Chinese whispers, that it the easiest of exercises to assume there is 
nothing significant to them. Except for the other comment that some people 
refuse to join foundation-l makes me wonder where such people *do* discuss 
general topics. If there are any people participating in general topic threads 
on internal-l while remaining silent during the same time period in transparent 
forums, they should blush every time they type the word transparent.  I hope 
that if former category exists at all, they are so not foolish to ever find 
themselves in the latter position. If it is otherwise, will they please from 
this moment forward allow others to take the lead on that particular issue. I 
would hate to see the work towards transparency set backwards because someone 
too much connected with such work is exposed as a hypocrite by a rival during 
some period of bad blood. 

BirgitteSB


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[John Vandenberg]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:39 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>> .. Doesn't anybody here know
>> how to use a wiki?
>
> I do!
>
> Not having been able to find a chart so far, I created my own:
> .
>
> The list of chapters is derived from the "big 12" listed at
> .
>
> Anyone involved in a particular listed chapter should feel free to update
> their row. Otherwise, I'll probably end up just making some numbers up. ;-)

I've added AUD actuals to that table.  I am pretty sure that our
actuals in USD were reported publicly somewhere at the time; we'll
find them and add them to your table.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[MZMcBride]

Michael Snow wrote:
> On 8/5/2011 4:26 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snow  wrote:
>>> .. Honestly, I must say that it
>>> is a colossal disappointment to find that with all the posts I've seen
>>> both here and on internal-l, nobody has yet made a single edit to the
>>> talk page on Meta where the letter was posted. Doesn't anybody here know
>>> how to use a wiki?
>> Michael, the board announcement is not a good way to start a conversation.
>> Perhaps it is you who doesn't know how to use a wiki. :P
> That's funny, it seems to have started quite a bit of conversation. I
> just wanted to point out that we have these recurring arguments about
> the "right" mailing list to use, when we keep ignoring the arguably more
> open and transparent forum we're all familiar with.

Wikis are, quite simply, terrible for discussion. Maybe one day there will
be a great replacement for the ":" madness, but until then, even
mailing lists, antiquated and goofy as they are, are a vast improvement.

People bring up the forum because this (foundation-l) is the central list
for the Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who thinks that this particular issue
is outside of this list's scope is insane. Using internal-l as a substitute
for an open discussion isn't appropriate or in line with Wikimedia's values.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[MZMcBride]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 6 August 2011 00:26, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>> Perhaps I should post those private conversations to the wiki so we can use
>> the wiki to discuss the real problem: how the WMF is implementing the
>> improvement.
> 
> Violating confidentiality? Tch.

I fail to see how violating the community's principles of transparency and
accountability by keeping everything on a non-public list is any better. I
just hope nobody's discussing anything too private there... arbcom-l is a
cautionary tale.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[MZMcBride]

Michael Snow wrote:
> That being said, when it comes to discussing the guiding principles for
> things like fundraising, or the relationships between the foundation and
> chapters collectively, I do think it would be better to have more of
> that discussion open to the entire community. In terms of identifying
> the right forum for discussion, though, I'm not sure how much better
> this list really is, given that anecdotally its atmosphere has driven so
> many chapter people to resist subscribing. Honestly, I must say that it
> is a colossal disappointment to find that with all the posts I've seen
> both here and on internal-l, nobody has yet made a single edit to the
> talk page on Meta where the letter was posted. Doesn't anybody here know
> how to use a wiki?

I do!

Not having been able to find a chart so far, I created my own:
.

The list of chapters is derived from the "big 12" listed at
.

Anyone involved in a particular listed chapter should feel free to update
their row. Otherwise, I'll probably end up just making some numbers up. ;-)

I'll post a link to the new chart on the referenced talk page in a moment.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Michael Snow]

On 8/5/2011 4:26 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snow  wrote:
>> .. Honestly, I must say that it
>> is a colossal disappointment to find that with all the posts I've seen
>> both here and on internal-l, nobody has yet made a single edit to the
>> talk page on Meta where the letter was posted. Doesn't anybody here know
>> how to use a wiki?
> Michael, the board announcement is not a good way to start a conversation.
> Perhaps it is you who doesn't know how to use a wiki. :P
That's funny, it seems to have started quite a bit of conversation. I 
just wanted to point out that we have these recurring arguments about 
the "right" mailing list to use, when we keep ignoring the arguably more 
open and transparent forum we're all familiar with.

--Michael Snow

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[David Gerard]

On 6 August 2011 00:26, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> And in doing so, the WMF wont have the benefit of the donations that
> are made because the donor responds well to the fact they know in
> advance that the money goes to a local organisation - an organisation
> which is accountable to the local regulatory system.


I know that some people do donate because of the local factor. Others
donate because they want to give money to "Wikipedia". Do we have
actual numbers (e.g. survey results) as to proportions?


>   Perhaps I should post those private
> conversations to the wiki so we can use the wiki to discuss the real
> problem: how the WMF is implementing the improvement.


Violating confidentiality? Tch.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[John Vandenberg]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snow  wrote:
> .. Honestly, I must say that it
> is a colossal disappointment to find that with all the posts I've seen
> both here and on internal-l, nobody has yet made a single edit to the
> talk page on Meta where the letter was posted. Doesn't anybody here know
> how to use a wiki?

Michael, the board announcement is not a good way to start a conversation.
Perhaps it is you who doesn't know how to use a wiki. :P

It is a pronouncement, and talks about "criteria" which are not in the
agreement the chapters recently signed.

If the letter talked about improvements to be made to the next
agreement, you would have a lot of positive activity around the
letter.  The recently signed agreement covers this financial year, and
*only* this next financial year.  Now is a good time to start working
on the next agreement, so that we can slowly work through all the
issues related to 35+ countries with a chapter.

If the WMF wanted to make changes to the current agreement, and
recognised that late changes are going to be difficult, we could work
with you make some important changes which raise the bar but do not
adversely and unnecessarily exclude anyone who has already signed the
agreement.  To begin with, chapters would be wanting a tiered approach
to these criteria.  For example, tax-deductibility does not make sense
for a small chapter, and it is usually impossible for small
organisations to obtain this.  It is silly to exclude a chapter on
this basis - the WMF cant become tax-deductible in these countries
anyway, so there is no possible benefit to the donor if the chapter is
excluded from the fundraising process because they are not
tax-deductible.  Until the chapter becomes tax-deductible, there is no
possibility for the donor to obtain a tax deduction.  In some
countries it is very inappropriate to fundraise without government
approval, so the WMF shouldnt be fundraising in these countries
anyway.  Chapters receiving significant amounts of dollars should use
those funds to pursue the often difficult process of
tax-deductibility.  There are only a few chapters who fall into this
bracket, yet WMF is trying to reduce all chapters to wikipedia clubs.
And in doing so, the WMF wont have the benefit of the donations that
are made because the donor responds well to the fact they know in
advance that the money goes to a local organisation - an organisation
which is accountable to the local regulatory system.

This letter comes on the heels of WMF staff privately contacting
individual on chapter boards over the last week and telling them that
they are breaking the fundraising agreement, after the chapters have
sought qualified opinions on the matter and signed the agreement on
that basis.  Now we know why.  Perhaps I should post those private
conversations to the wiki so we can use the wiki to discuss the real
problem: how the WMF is implementing the improvement.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[John Vandenberg]

Many chapters are shocked at this announcement, and there is a likely
conversation on internal-l, which has followed after a blog
conversation which was reported in the Signpost (see first item in
"News in brief").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-01/News_and_notes

The chapters organised and sent people to a Fundraising Summit in
June, and the Fundraising Agreement was on the agenda.  The WMF was
there.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011/Fundraising_Summit

After the summit, the chapters then signed the Fundraising Agreement
with the WMF.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011/Chapter_Fundraising_Agreement

This recent announcement from the WMF has many, albeit minor,
differences to the agreement that was recently signed.

-- 
John Vandenberg

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Theo10011  wrote:
> Nathan, there is no reason to single out Beria. She at least responded to
> the questions. There are a lot of people reading this who didn't and have
> far more authority to comment on the matter than her.
>
> Theo
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Nathan  wrote:
>
>> Beria, I don't think your views on transparency as stated mesh all
>> that well with the character of this list. I'd suspect the same is
>> true of the wider community of editors and donors; the assertion that
>> details be discussed in private is both improper and at distinct odds
>> with the history of the WMF. If chapters prefer that their actions not
>> be subject to the oversight of the WMF and Wikimedia community, then
>> they should do their own fundraising and develop their own trademarks.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Béria Lima  wrote:
>> > If they do revoke (which they can, because do report are part of Chapter
>> > Agreement), will be also a private discussion. I do understand your
>> people
>> > curiosity to know what they discusses, but all the relevant info are
>> public.
>> > Only particular details are handle in private
>> > _
>> > *Béria Lima*
>> > (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 .*
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[kotechemcintosh]

1qcQA
Sent from my BlackBerry smartphone from Virgin Media

-Original Message-
From: Michael Snow 
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 15:06:36 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

On 8/5/2011 2:22 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Beria, I don't think your views on transparency as stated mesh all
> that well with the character of this list. I'd suspect the same is
> true of the wider community of editors and donors; the assertion that
> details be discussed in private is both improper and at distinct odds
> with the history of the WMF. If chapters prefer that their actions not
> be subject to the oversight of the WMF and Wikimedia community, then
> they should do their own fundraising and develop their own trademarks.
When it comes to the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and 
one of its chapters, I think it's understandable that much of that 
discussion happens directly between the foundation and the given 
chapter. That's no different than the kind of interaction people expect 
under any circumstances. It's just like an editor might want to receive 
the courtesy of being contacted personally, on their user talk page or 
via email, about a problem, rather than somebody going off to blast them 
on a mailing list. So at some point, I think the concepts of "in 
private" or "in public" are not really what anybody is aiming for, 
especially since they get used in such black-and-white terms that leave 
no flexibility for circumstances.

That being said, when it comes to discussing the guiding principles for 
things like fundraising, or the relationships between the foundation and 
chapters collectively, I do think it would be better to have more of 
that discussion open to the entire community. In terms of identifying 
the right forum for discussion, though, I'm not sure how much better 
this list really is, given that anecdotally its atmosphere has driven so 
many chapter people to resist subscribing. Honestly, I must say that it 
is a colossal disappointment to find that with all the posts I've seen 
both here and on internal-l, nobody has yet made a single edit to the 
talk page on Meta where the letter was posted. Doesn't anybody here know 
how to use a wiki?

--Michael Snow

___
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] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Michael Snow]

On 8/5/2011 2:22 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Beria, I don't think your views on transparency as stated mesh all
> that well with the character of this list. I'd suspect the same is
> true of the wider community of editors and donors; the assertion that
> details be discussed in private is both improper and at distinct odds
> with the history of the WMF. If chapters prefer that their actions not
> be subject to the oversight of the WMF and Wikimedia community, then
> they should do their own fundraising and develop their own trademarks.
When it comes to the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and 
one of its chapters, I think it's understandable that much of that 
discussion happens directly between the foundation and the given 
chapter. That's no different than the kind of interaction people expect 
under any circumstances. It's just like an editor might want to receive 
the courtesy of being contacted personally, on their user talk page or 
via email, about a problem, rather than somebody going off to blast them 
on a mailing list. So at some point, I think the concepts of "in 
private" or "in public" are not really what anybody is aiming for, 
especially since they get used in such black-and-white terms that leave 
no flexibility for circumstances.

That being said, when it comes to discussing the guiding principles for 
things like fundraising, or the relationships between the foundation and 
chapters collectively, I do think it would be better to have more of 
that discussion open to the entire community. In terms of identifying 
the right forum for discussion, though, I'm not sure how much better 
this list really is, given that anecdotally its atmosphere has driven so 
many chapter people to resist subscribing. Honestly, I must say that it 
is a colossal disappointment to find that with all the posts I've seen 
both here and on internal-l, nobody has yet made a single edit to the 
talk page on Meta where the letter was posted. Doesn't anybody here know 
how to use a wiki?

--Michael Snow

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Béria Lima]

You don't need to defend me Theo.

Nathan and MZM: If you want to know how much each chapter has earned and
spent, there are reports (nathan himself pointed to the page).

If you have any questions about Internal-l adress it to
internal-l-ow...@list.wikimedia.org (I'm sure they will answer you)

If you want to ask about my chapter (Wikimedia Portugal) the reports are
here: http://wikimedia.pt/Relat%C3%B3rio_Anual_2009 and here:
http://wikimedia.pt/Relat%C3%B3rio_Anual_2010
_
*Béria Lima*
(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 .*


On 5 August 2011 22:27, Theo10011  wrote:

> Nathan, there is no reason to single out Beria. She at least responded to
> the questions. There are a lot of people reading this who didn't and have
> far more authority to comment on the matter than her.
>
> Theo
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > Beria, I don't think your views on transparency as stated mesh all
> > that well with the character of this list. I'd suspect the same is
> > true of the wider community of editors and donors; the assertion that
> > details be discussed in private is both improper and at distinct odds
> > with the history of the WMF. If chapters prefer that their actions not
> > be subject to the oversight of the WMF and Wikimedia community, then
> > they should do their own fundraising and develop their own trademarks.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Béria Lima  wrote:
> > > If they do revoke (which they can, because do report are part of
> Chapter
> > > Agreement), will be also a private discussion. I do understand your
> > people
> > > curiosity to know what they discusses, but all the relevant info are
> > public.
> > > Only particular details are handle in private
> > > _
> > > *Béria Lima*
> > > (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 .*
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Nathan]

Other than that Beria is the person to whom I was replying, I suppose.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Theo10011  wrote:
> Nathan, there is no reason to single out Beria. She at least responded to
> the questions. There are a lot of people reading this who didn't and have
> far more authority to comment on the matter than her.
>
> Theo
>

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Theo10011]

Nathan, there is no reason to single out Beria. She at least responded to
the questions. There are a lot of people reading this who didn't and have
far more authority to comment on the matter than her.

Theo

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> Beria, I don't think your views on transparency as stated mesh all
> that well with the character of this list. I'd suspect the same is
> true of the wider community of editors and donors; the assertion that
> details be discussed in private is both improper and at distinct odds
> with the history of the WMF. If chapters prefer that their actions not
> be subject to the oversight of the WMF and Wikimedia community, then
> they should do their own fundraising and develop their own trademarks.
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Béria Lima  wrote:
> > If they do revoke (which they can, because do report are part of Chapter
> > Agreement), will be also a private discussion. I do understand your
> people
> > curiosity to know what they discusses, but all the relevant info are
> public.
> > Only particular details are handle in private
> > _
> > *Béria Lima*
> > (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 .*
> >
> >
>
> ___
> 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] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Nathan]

Also, the spreadsheet Beria linked
(https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWlqeHp5ak5uWnc&authkey=CKb59_wD&hl=pt_PT#gid=0)
shows how much money was received by from each region, but not how
much was distributed to the chapters (or so I'm guessing, since there
area number of countries on that list I'm fairly sure don't have
chapters). Is there another spreadsheet that says how much was
diverted to chapter organizations?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Nathan]

Beria, I don't think your views on transparency as stated mesh all
that well with the character of this list. I'd suspect the same is
true of the wider community of editors and donors; the assertion that
details be discussed in private is both improper and at distinct odds
with the history of the WMF. If chapters prefer that their actions not
be subject to the oversight of the WMF and Wikimedia community, then
they should do their own fundraising and develop their own trademarks.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Béria Lima  wrote:
> If they do revoke (which they can, because do report are part of Chapter
> Agreement), will be also a private discussion. I do understand your people
> curiosity to know what they discusses, but all the relevant info are public.
> Only particular details are handle in private
> _
> *Béria Lima*
> (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 .*
>
>

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Victor Vasiliev]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Béria Lima  wrote:
> If they do revoke (which they can, because do report are part of Chapter
> Agreement), will be also a private discussion. I do understand your people
> curiosity to know what they discusses, but all the relevant info are public.
> Only particular details are handle in private

Wait, was that a non-of-your-business response? And what do you mean
by "they discuss"? Who are they?

--vvv

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Béria Lima]

If they do revoke (which they can, because do report are part of Chapter
Agreement), will be also a private discussion. I do understand your people
curiosity to know what they discusses, but all the relevant info are public.
Only particular details are handle in private
_
*Béria Lima*
(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 .*


On 5 August 2011 22:09, Victor Vasiliev  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Béria Lima  wrote:
> > I sugguest you to go tough chapters report and ask what they are doing
> with
> > the money they receive in Fundraising. They need to be transparent about
> > what they are doing, but WMF does not have a "policy" status over that.
>
> Well, right now many chapters fail to handle such basic transparency
> thing like publishing an annual report (seriously, look at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports ). If they fail, Wikimedia
> Foundation, as an organization that empowers them to collect money
> through the banners, may act as an oversight and revoke that
> privilege. I do not believe that this is the proper process to do
> that, but I certainly agree that it is what to be done.
>
> --vvv
>
> ___
> 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] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Victor Vasiliev]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Béria Lima  wrote:
> I sugguest you to go tough chapters report and ask what they are doing with
> the money they receive in Fundraising. They need to be transparent about
> what they are doing, but WMF does not have a "policy" status over that.

Well, right now many chapters fail to handle such basic transparency
thing like publishing an annual report (seriously, look at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports ). If they fail, Wikimedia
Foundation, as an organization that empowers them to collect money
through the banners, may act as an oversight and revoke that
privilege. I do not believe that this is the proper process to do
that, but I certainly agree that it is what to be done.

--vvv

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Béria Lima]

>
> *Where did the money come from? I think it unambiguously concerns people
> who are part of the Wikimedia community (broadly defined), seeing as they
> were the ones to donate the money.
> *


1. People who donate money are mostly NOT on fundation-l and 2.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports (if you want to read)

*The chapters earned the money by doing what, exactly?
> *


Same thing Fundation do.


> *Do you know if there's a chart listing how much money each chapter
> received (or earned) from the past fundraiser? Is there a list of the
> chapters that were involved, at least?
> *


Yes and is public.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWlqeHp5ak5uWnc&authkey=CKb59_wD&hl=pt_PT#gid=0


_
*Béria Lima*
(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 .*


On 5 August 2011 22:01, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Béria Lima wrote:
> > The discussion in Internal-l is case-to-case and don't concern people who
> > are not involved in the chapter in discussion or WMF.
>
> Where did the money come from? I think it unambiguously concerns people who
> are part of the Wikimedia community (broadly defined), seeing as they were
> the ones to donate the money.
>
> > And - again - WMF don't "give money to chapters" in fundraising. The
> chapter
> > earn it alone. And the only thing to be in the way is the fundraising
> > agreement. Who - again - says that 50% goes to WMF and 50% stay with the
> > chapter. If that 50% is more than what the chapter need, is not WMF job
> to
> > ask the money back, because - again - the money don't belong to WMF.
>
> The chapters earned the money by doing what, exactly?
>
> > I sugguest you to go tough chapters report and ask what they are doing
> with
> > the money they receive in Fundraising. They need to be transparent about
> > what they are doing, but WMF does not have a "policy" status over that.
>
> Do you know if there's a chart listing how much money each chapter received
> (or earned) from the past fundraiser? Is there a list of the chapters that
> were involved, at least?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[MZMcBride]

Béria Lima wrote:
> The discussion in Internal-l is case-to-case and don't concern people who
> are not involved in the chapter in discussion or WMF.

Where did the money come from? I think it unambiguously concerns people who
are part of the Wikimedia community (broadly defined), seeing as they were
the ones to donate the money.

> And - again - WMF don't "give money to chapters" in fundraising. The chapter
> earn it alone. And the only thing to be in the way is the fundraising
> agreement. Who - again - says that 50% goes to WMF and 50% stay with the
> chapter. If that 50% is more than what the chapter need, is not WMF job to
> ask the money back, because - again - the money don't belong to WMF.

The chapters earned the money by doing what, exactly?

> I sugguest you to go tough chapters report and ask what they are doing with
> the money they receive in Fundraising. They need to be transparent about
> what they are doing, but WMF does not have a "policy" status over that.

Do you know if there's a chart listing how much money each chapter received
(or earned) from the past fundraiser? Is there a list of the chapters that
were involved, at least?

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Béria Lima]

The discussion in Internal-l is case-to-case and don't concern people who
are not involved in the chapter in discussion or WMF.

And - again - WMF don't "give money to chapters" in fundraising. The chapter
earn it alone. And the only thing to be in the way is the fundraising
agreement. Who - again - says that 50% goes to WMF and 50% stay with the
chapter. If that 50% is more than what the chapter need, is not WMF job to
ask the money back, because - again - the money don't belong to WMF.

I sugguest you to go tough chapters report and ask what they are doing with
the money they receive in Fundraising. They need to be transparent about
what they are doing, but WMF does not have a "policy" status over that.
_
*Béria Lima*
(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 .*


On 5 August 2011 21:48, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Béria Lima wrote:
> > WMF *can't *ask money back from Chapters. By the agreement, Chapters who
> > participate in last year Fundraising need to give 50% of everything they
> > raised to WMF, but they are not forced to do anything more. And WMF can't
> > ask for more than that because there are 2 different organizations.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't follow.
>
> It's my understanding that some of these chapters received tens of
> thousands
> of dollars. In some cases, as noted by the Board, this far exceeded the
> chapter's needs. If that's the case, I'm not sure why it would be
> out-of-the-question to ask for some of the money back. There might be
> reasons that the chapters don't want to or aren't required to, but I don't
> see any reason why the Wikimedia Foundation couldn't ask.
>
> Can you clarify?
>
> (And to all those chapter-related people and Wikimedia Foundation staff
> currently discussing this on internal-l, could you please try to honor the
> transparency and accountability that Wikimedia was founded upon and discuss
> this on the public list?)
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[MZMcBride]

Béria Lima wrote:
> WMF *can't *ask money back from Chapters. By the agreement, Chapters who
> participate in last year Fundraising need to give 50% of everything they
> raised to WMF, but they are not forced to do anything more. And WMF can't
> ask for more than that because there are 2 different organizations.

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

It's my understanding that some of these chapters received tens of thousands
of dollars. In some cases, as noted by the Board, this far exceeded the
chapter's needs. If that's the case, I'm not sure why it would be
out-of-the-question to ask for some of the money back. There might be
reasons that the chapters don't want to or aren't required to, but I don't
see any reason why the Wikimedia Foundation couldn't ask.

Can you clarify?

(And to all those chapter-related people and Wikimedia Foundation staff
currently discussing this on internal-l, could you please try to honor the
transparency and accountability that Wikimedia was founded upon and discuss
this on the public list?)

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[Béria Lima]

MZM,

WMF *can't *ask money back from Chapters. By the agreement, Chapters who
participate in last year Fundraising need to give 50% of everything they
raised to WMF, but they are not forced to do anything more. And WMF can't
ask for more than that because there are 2 different organizations.
_
*Béria Lima*
(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 .*


On 5 August 2011 18:06, MZMcBride  wrote:

> phoebe ayers wrote:
> > The Board of Trustees has recently reviewed our fundraising model and
> issues
> > related to the way donor funds are received. This review followed
> detailed
> > discussions among the Board's Audit Committee and with our outside
> auditors,
> > which highlighted issues about the level of financial controls over donor
> > funds that go directly to the chapters who act as payment processors.
> This
> > review focused on the model established last year, under which donors in
> > certain countries are exclusively directed to the local chapter during
> the
> > annual fundraiser. In our 2010-2011 year, about $4M net went directly to
> 12
> > chapters, representing roughly 15% of the total funds donated to the
> > movement.
> >
> > There are several problems with this model, and with the current
> fundraising
> > situation. Some chapters have received large sums of money early in their
> > organizational lives, before they have built the capacity and financial
> > controls to safeguard and best use those resources in pursuit of the
> > mission. Some chapters have received many times their planned budget in a
> > single fundraiser. Additionally, in some countries, transferring funds
> > internationally has been limited by regulatory constraints.
> >
> > There are also currently no movement-wide controls applied consistently
> to
> > all entities that receive donor funds. Some chapters, despite being
> > well-funded, have not reported in a timely way on their activities, their
> > financial status, and their use of donor funds, or have had difficulties
> > following the regulatory requirements of their countries.
> >
> > This fundraising model has also contributed to significant resource
> > disparity among chapters. Some of the largest fundraising chapters have
> > revenue far greater than their stated need and capacity to spend, while
> > other chapters receive revenue only from Foundation grants or have almost
> no
> > revenue at all. The model also suggests that chapters are entitled to
> funds
> > proportional to the wealth of their regions, which amplifies the gap
> between
> > the Global North and South.
>
> I think it's great that the Board is looking into this. I was vaguely aware
> of the problem and it's certainly one that needs to be addressed.
>
> I have two questions from your post:
>
> * Is there a breakdown of the amount of money given to chapters from the
> past fundraiser? A chart or something somewhere? There definitely should be
> and I imagine there is, but I wouldn't be able to locate it off-hand.
>
> * Have any chapters been asked to give money back? If so, what has been the
> response?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Board letter about fundraising and chapters

[MZMcBride]

phoebe ayers wrote:
> The Board of Trustees has recently reviewed our fundraising model and issues
> related to the way donor funds are received. This review followed detailed
> discussions among the Board's Audit Committee and with our outside auditors,
> which highlighted issues about the level of financial controls over donor
> funds that go directly to the chapters who act as payment processors. This
> review focused on the model established last year, under which donors in
> certain countries are exclusively directed to the local chapter during the
> annual fundraiser. In our 2010-2011 year, about $4M net went directly to 12
> chapters, representing roughly 15% of the total funds donated to the
> movement.
> 
> There are several problems with this model, and with the current fundraising
> situation. Some chapters have received large sums of money early in their
> organizational lives, before they have built the capacity and financial
> controls to safeguard and best use those resources in pursuit of the
> mission. Some chapters have received many times their planned budget in a
> single fundraiser. Additionally, in some countries, transferring funds
> internationally has been limited by regulatory constraints.
> 
> There are also currently no movement-wide controls applied consistently to
> all entities that receive donor funds. Some chapters, despite being
> well-funded, have not reported in a timely way on their activities, their
> financial status, and their use of donor funds, or have had difficulties
> following the regulatory requirements of their countries.
> 
> This fundraising model has also contributed to significant resource
> disparity among chapters. Some of the largest fundraising chapters have
> revenue far greater than their stated need and capacity to spend, while
> other chapters receive revenue only from Foundation grants or have almost no
> revenue at all. The model also suggests that chapters are entitled to funds
> proportional to the wealth of their regions, which amplifies the gap between
> the Global North and South.

I think it's great that the Board is looking into this. I was vaguely aware
of the problem and it's certainly one that needs to be addressed.

I have two questions from your post:

* Is there a breakdown of the amount of money given to chapters from the
past fundraiser? A chart or something somewhere? There definitely should be
and I imagine there is, but I wouldn't be able to locate it off-hand.

* Have any chapters been asked to give money back? If so, what has been the
response?

MZMcBride



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