Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: I mean that was not negotiable the choice to have grant agreement/fundraising agreement. Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion. Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain terms that the WMF is not going to enter into any more fundraising agreements for the upcoming fundraiser, so your experience is consistent with that. You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter into another fundraising agreement with you. No, no WM IT, a chapter all green or yellow, but what is the advantage to say the name of the chapter? The question is that the letter has generated a big modification and a big change. Now the question is managed with private negotiations. I don't think that the solution will be a neutral solution. To know if a chapter is or not is complaint, it is important to have a framework. This framework defines the guidelines for a chapter and assure the transparency. This framework will assure that an audit will be a real audit (neutral and impartial). This framework will assure the transparency. At the moment a system of parameters to decide if a chapter can participate in the general fundraising it's not well defined. These parameters are decided case by case, country by country and in general with a specific negotiation. The letter of the board has defined a first schema of a framework (to take part in a fundraising a chapter (any chapter) must have A, B, C, D). The aim of this letter is acceptable and it's in a good way. Probably it would have been more acceptable if there was fixed a deadline to adapt the local situation to this letter. The interpretation of this letter is becoming disruptive and is applying a different logic and a different evaluation for all chapters, basically a good letter is generating worst results. I can understand that the board must not take care about the executive matters, but if the member of the board see that the principles of their guidelines are misunderstood or that someone is changing the principles, the board should explicit these principles in a good way and correct the interpretation. The question will be more conflictual if the interpretation of this letter is very different from what the chapters have understood and what the executive team would propose. Basically this letter is generating a not neutral, impartial and conflictual system. I don't know if the board is proud of this. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 1 September 2011 09:45, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter into another fundraising agreement with you. No, no WM IT, a chapter all green or yellow, but what is the advantage to say the name of the chapter? Ok, I've looked you up. You mean WMCH. My apologies for forgetting which chapter you are from! The question is that the letter has generated a big modification and a big change. True. Now the question is managed with private negotiations. True. Since every chapter's situation is different, that can't really be helped. I don't think that the solution will be a neutral solution. What does neutral mean in this context? To know if a chapter is or not is complaint, it is important to have a framework. This framework defines the guidelines for a chapter and assure the transparency. This framework will assure that an audit will be a real audit (neutral and impartial). This framework will assure the transparency. At the moment a system of parameters to decide if a chapter can participate in the general fundraising it's not well defined. These parameters are decided case by case, country by country and in general with a specific negotiation. The letter of the board has defined a first schema of a framework (to take part in a fundraising a chapter (any chapter) must have A, B, C, D). The aim of this letter is acceptable and it's in a good way. I don't think we want something too rigid. It's sensible to consider each chapter on its own merits rather than try and fit everyone into a box. The board's letter sets out some general principles for that individual consideration to be based on, which seems like a good approach to me. Probably it would have been more acceptable if there was fixed a deadline to adapt the local situation to this letter. The timing has been appallingly bad, yes. For the WMF to continue along the path it was on even when it was pretty sure it was going in the wrong direction was ridiculous. We should have been having these discussions months ago, so the chapters would have had time to try and meet whatever requirements were being set out. The interpretation of this letter is becoming disruptive and is applying a different logic and a different evaluation for all chapters, basically a good letter is generating worst results. I can understand that the board must not take care about the executive matters, but if the member of the board see that the principles of their guidelines are misunderstood or that someone is changing the principles, the board should explicit these principles in a good way and correct the interpretation. The question will be more conflictual if the interpretation of this letter is very different from what the chapters have understood and what the executive team would propose. I agree, the staff don't seem to be interpreting the letter correctly. I know Ting has let them know they haven't got it quite right, although I'm not aware of any actual clarification being forthcoming. Basically this letter is generating a not neutral, impartial and conflictual system. I don't know if the board is proud of this. As above, I don't know what neutral means in this context. It was never going to be impartial. The WMF board are obliged to act in the interests of the WMF. That's never going to change. Ideally, the interests of the WMF are the same as the interests of everyone else involved in the movement, but unfortunately that's not always the case. The conflict and hostility it has generated is a big problem and the board could have done a much better job at avoiding that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Arne Klempert klempert.li...@gmail.com wrote: We did raise the bar for chapters to participate in the fundraiser as payment processors. However, IMO the board's guidance provides enough flexibility to let more chapters than just WMDE participate in 2011. But again, the board didn't make any decision about individual chapters, neither in favor of any chapter nor against. Of course we had some conversations about the possible impact of our decision, but too many things were unclear at the time to tell for sure which chapters could participate in 2011. And even today I can't tell, since there are ongoing conversations between some chapters and WMF. For your information. Some chapters are a little bit confused because what has been proposed is only the grant agreement and nothing else. I asked if the proposal of grant agreement was negotiable and the answer has been no! It means that there was no opportunity for the chapters to discuss and to solve some issues. My chapter, for example, can match most of all point listed in the letter and we were disappointed that it has been considered not conform without any discussion. The problem was that the documentation was published in our website and not in meta or in other WMF's web sites, but this is a minor issue and not a blocking problem. You understand that if the letter says that some chapters can be admitted if they match some points and after someone says that no chapters can be admitted, this is more than an interpretation. This a policy completely different. Honestly a temporary period to give to chapters the possibility to adequate their infrastructure to the new requests would have been more appreciated. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 31 August 2011 09:34, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: I asked if the proposal of grant agreement was negotiable and the answer has been no! The talk page of the grant agreement on internal-wiki would seem to disagree with you. It is full of people pointing out problems or room for improvement and Barry saying Good point! and making the appropriate changes. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 August 2011 09:34, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: I asked if the proposal of grant agreement was negotiable and the answer has been no! The talk page of the grant agreement on internal-wiki would seem to disagree with you. It is full of people pointing out problems or room for improvement and Barry saying Good point! and making the appropriate changes. I mean that was not negotiable the choice to have grant agreement/fundraising agreement. Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: I mean that was not negotiable the choice to have grant agreement/fundraising agreement. Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion. Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain terms that the WMF is not going to enter into any more fundraising agreements for the upcoming fundraiser, so your experience is consistent with that. You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter into another fundraising agreement with you. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: I mean that was not negotiable the choice to have grant agreement/fundraising agreement. Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion. Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain terms that the WMF is not going to enter into any more fundraising agreements for the upcoming fundraiser, so your experience is consistent with that. You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter into another fundraising agreement with you. More stuff discussed on Internal-l only, I suppose. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 31 August 2011 22:20, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: I mean that was not negotiable the choice to have grant agreement/fundraising agreement. Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion. Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain terms that the WMF is not going to enter into any more fundraising agreements for the upcoming fundraiser, so your experience is consistent with that. You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter into another fundraising agreement with you. More stuff discussed on Internal-l only, I suppose. I don't understand. I can't remember which list Sue's statement was made on, but it's no secret. The tracking chart I referred to is on meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tracking_Progress_for_2011_chapters_fundraiser_and_reporting There has been plenty of discussion on this subject on internal-l, but nothing of significance is being kept from the wider community. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote: John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism laws and trade bans (unless a court has ruled that... etc). This puts imho chapters in an awkward position - being forced to follow laws they cannot reasonably know about unless they hire expensive expertise. It's the essence of imperialism. It is also conceivable that such a clause could be invalid in some countries. Certainly chapters faced with such a clause will need independent legal advice within their own countries. In many ways the presence of different laws in some countries should be used to our an advantage. This also fails to address the consequences of a chapter's refusal to abide by a US law that was not directly specified in the agreement. It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise. How can they stop chapters from fundraising? They can certainly stop chapters from participating in the WMF's fundraising campaign, but they will still have no control over a chapter's own fundraising programmes. Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve. In these circumstances hoping that something will be interpreted differently is not good enough. The exact reason for this seems to be vague to me. I really do hope the board will step forth and makes clear what their reasoning was and is - and doesn't hide behind staff (board members who already did so are being appreciated, but I'm still missing important voices). Is the reason really transparency? Is it about transferring money? Because that is important, but (sometimes easily) fixable. Or is the reasoning you don't like the projects the chapters work on? Because *then* we should have a discussion about that, and not hide behind non-reasons. I agree. The directors need to be more pro-active with their points of view. They need to be trying for a negotiated settlement. They need to recognize that the people most concerned with this turn of events are ones who have been consistent strong volunteer supporters of Wikimedia for many years. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 08/29/11 3:51 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: What I am saying is that Foundation will have to check every program of every chapter, no matter if it would give one large or per-program grants. And it will have to do no matter if chapters think that it is their problem. What would WMF do: * If it findswhatever unacceptable in a program, it would say: Please, find funds for that at some other place. * If it findswhatever unacceptable too late, chapter for sure wouldn't be internally responsible if it doesn't have a person with relevant knowledge. That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities. Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that will lead into even more delay in allocating grants. And that will become WMF's problem, as the problem is when you plan to spend some money and you don't do that. And about chapters: There are two chapters' Board representatives. And their term is going to be expired in half of the year or so. If chapters are not happy with their current representation, they should choose other persons to take care about their interests. I'm afraid that there is a lot there they haven't thought through. I would have no problems with an outreach programme aimed at Cuba, but the US masters might see that differently. Matters of processing capabilities would be the WMF's problems. If it gets caught up in its own bureaucracy chapters as a whole should develop ways to work around that. Probably too, there needs to be a a collective of some sort that looks after chapter interests. Although it may not bind the current chapter board representatives, responsibility to the chapters should be made clear to the future ones. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
2011/8/30 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. Ok, but is WMF an economic institution? As a neutral observer (i.e. not a member of any chapter) I can honestly say it's beginning to act as one. Are chapters branches of WMF? Apparently they will become just that from what I understand from this thread The notable successes should be in no profit organizations. I think David made an ironic reference to communism here :) The thing is, central planning works well for small-size entities. But is the WMF still a small size entity? They say they are, cos' their budget is so tiny etc., etc., but I think you can't expand worldwide and still call yourself small. It just doesn't make sense. Strainu ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 30 August 2011 10:11, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. Ok, but is WMF an economic institution? I was hoping to make a more general analogy. How about: Nupedia (centralised) versus Wikipedia? Are chapters branches of WMF? The plan to move them to grants makes them effectively into such branches, as does (from the reports in this thread) the language of the new agreements. Centralisation is bad, stupid, wrong and will cripple the effectiveness of the movement. What we do can't possibly work that way. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
2011/8/30 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote: It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise. How can they stop chapters from fundraising? They can certainly stop chapters from participating in the WMF's fundraising campaign, but they will still have no control over a chapter's own fundraising programmes. I have heard this argument too often now, so let me finally reply to it. Perhaps I should rephrase my statement to not allowing good faith chapters to fundraise. Because that is basically what is happening - a chapter that has the best with the movement in mind, will not try to compete with the Wikimedia Foundation by fundraising on its own. I have never heard of any international organization which had two organizations (national and world wide) fundraising at the same time in the same country. And why would not-online fundraising suddenly be OK if the main reasons of the WMF are transparency and not following the WMF strategy closely enough? Why would it be so different? Because at the same time, chapters would still be asking donors to support those goals Wikipedia stands for: the sum of all knowledge available for every human being. The message doesn't change, the accountability doesn't suddenly improve and the performed activities with the money don't change. The only thing that is different is that it is less visible and that the fundraising agreement doesn't forbid it. Lodewijk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 30 August 2011 10:44, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: 2011/8/30 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote: It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise. How can they stop chapters from fundraising? They can certainly stop chapters from participating in the WMF's fundraising campaign, but they will still have no control over a chapter's own fundraising programmes. I have heard this argument too often now, so let me finally reply to it. Perhaps I should rephrase my statement to not allowing good faith chapters to fundraise. Because that is basically what is happening - a chapter that has the best with the movement in mind, will not try to compete with the Wikimedia Foundation by fundraising on its own. I have never heard of any international organization which had two organizations (national and world wide) fundraising at the same time in the same country. And why would not-online fundraising suddenly be OK if the main reasons of the WMF are transparency and not following the WMF strategy closely enough? Why would it be so different? Because at the same time, chapters would still be asking donors to support those goals Wikipedia stands for: the sum of all knowledge available for every human being. The message doesn't change, the accountability doesn't suddenly improve and the performed activities with the money don't change. The only thing that is different is that it is less visible and that the fundraising agreement doesn't forbid it. For the record, one of the examples used as an international charitable organization with multiple local chapters, Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders)...does indeed run both international and national fundraising drives at the same time. My inbox contains recent requests for donations from both my national chapter and the international organization, dated within days of each other. And I have a choice as to whether to donate to the international campaign or the national one, although I do so at different websites, and only get a tax credit for donations made to the local chapter. This 40-year-old internationally recognized organization has only 25 recognized national chapters, which have needed to meet rigorous standards to obtain and retain their status. It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Hi Anne, On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters. Just for clarification: did you actually look for these agreements or are you just assuming they aren't available publicly? The standard template for the agreement is published here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundation There are some small modifications for individual chapters but the general principles apply through all of them. Best regards, Sebastian Moleski President Wikimedia Deutschland ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters. Hi Risker, The chapter agreement should be public. There is a version of it at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundation, which might be slightly out of sync with a version on an internal wiki; most chapters sign the exact same agreement ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_agreements). The fundraising agreement that the WMF now seems to back out of should also be public: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_agreement. The proposed grant agreement is currently on an internal wiki and not public. Best regards, Bence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Sebastian Moleski i...@sebmol.me wrote: Hi Anne, On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters. Just for clarification: did you actually look for these agreements or are you just assuming they aren't available publicly? The standard template for the agreement is published here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundation There are some small modifications for individual chapters but the general principles apply through all of them. Best regards, Sebastian Moleski President Wikimedia Deutschland She was probably referring to the grant agreement, which is not public. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 30 August 2011 11:09, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters. Hi Risker, The chapter agreement should be public. There is a version of it at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundation , which might be slightly out of sync with a version on an internal wiki; most chapters sign the exact same agreement ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_agreements). The fundraising agreement that the WMF now seems to back out of should also be public: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_agreement. The proposed grant agreement is currently on an internal wiki and not public. Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is *not* publicly available, and there are many references to current agreements without links to the version that particular chapter signed or authorized, I'd say it's still pretty hard for those who aren't actively involved in the administration of chapters to really know what is going on. The chapters agreement itself doesn't contain several of the points that are so controversial in this thread, for example. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Nathan wrote: On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Sebastian Moleski i...@sebmol.me wrote: Just for clarification: did you actually look for these agreements or are you just assuming they aren't available publicly? The standard template for the agreement is published here: http://wikimedia.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundation There are some small modifications for individual chapters but the general principles apply through all of them. She was probably referring to the grant agreement, which is not public. Is there any reason it's not public? Not really asking you (Nathan) directly, but asking the list, I suppose. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve. The board decided on some criteria and asked that the concerns need to be substantially addressed prior to the start of the 2011 fundraiser. To be very clear here, since there has been some confusion on that front: The board did decide on the letter and not on any interpretation of it - it was hard enough to come to a version of this letter to which every board member could agree. The implementation is up to the staff. It's their call. We did raise the bar for chapters to participate in the fundraiser as payment processors. However, IMO the board's guidance provides enough flexibility to let more chapters than just WMDE participate in 2011. But again, the board didn't make any decision about individual chapters, neither in favor of any chapter nor against. Of course we had some conversations about the possible impact of our decision, but too many things were unclear at the time to tell for sure which chapters could participate in 2011. And even today I can't tell, since there are ongoing conversations between some chapters and WMF. The exact reason for this seems to be vague to me. I really do hope the board will step forth and makes clear what their reasoning was and is - and doesn't hide behind staff (board members who already did so are being appreciated, but I'm still missing important voices). Is the reason really transparency? Is it about transferring money? Because that is important, but (sometimes easily) fixable. There are many reasons why the old model was not good - and I think all of them are layed out in the letter. I will not try to re-formulate them - because I will certainly fail to come up with a version that is less vague while still representing the board's consensus. I myself would have dificulties to single out one exact reason. Transparency is certainly part of it, as are money transfer issues, or the legal framework we're operating in. I really don't want to blame this on the chapters alone. We all failed to implement a solid fundraising model that provides a level of financial controls over donor funds that is appropriate for a movement of our size and complexity. Or is the reasoning you don't like the projects the chapters work on? Because *then* we should have a discussion about that, and not hide behind non-reasons. I really do hope and I will do everything I can, that the current trouble will not lead to a situation where chapters stop doing any of the great projects they're doing. For me, this diverse and innovative culture is what makes Wikimedia so awesome. Arne -- Member of the Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org This gmail address is for mailing lists only. Please use surname@gmail.com for personal emails. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: .. Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is *not* publicly available, and there are many references to current agreements without links to the version that particular chapter signed or authorized, I'd say it's still pretty hard for those who aren't actively involved in the administration of chapters to really know what is going on. The chapters agreement itself doesn't contain several of the points that are so controversial in this thread, for example. It is also pretty hard for people actively involved in the administration of chapters to know what is going on, and why. On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:17 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Nathan wrote: On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Sebastian Moleski i...@sebmol.me wrote: Just for clarification: did you actually look for these agreements or are you just assuming they aren't available publicly? The standard template for the agreement is published here: http://wikimedia.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundation There are some small modifications for individual chapters but the general principles apply through all of them. She was probably referring to the grant agreement, which is not public. Is there any reason it's not public? Not really asking you (Nathan) directly, but asking the list, I suppose. It is a draft. A few problems were communicated privately nine days ago from WMAU, and from other chapters around the same time. I would like an ETA from the WMF on a public version for comment. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Arne Klempert klempert.li...@gmail.com wrote: ... We did raise the bar for chapters to participate in the fundraiser as payment processors. However, IMO the board's guidance provides enough flexibility to let more chapters than just WMDE participate in 2011. flexibility? Arne, do you agree that all signed fundraising agreements should be honoured by the WMF? -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 30 August 2011 19:35, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: .. Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is *not* publicly available, and there are many references to current agreements without links to the version that particular chapter signed or authorized, I'd say it's still pretty hard for those who aren't actively involved in the administration of chapters to really know what is going on. The chapters agreement itself doesn't contain several of the points that are so controversial in this thread, for example. It is also pretty hard for people actively involved in the administration of chapters to know what is going on, and why. snip Thanks for that comment, John. While I probably don't entirely share your own view (or that of many others) about the entire chapter/fundraising issue, I can certainly understand and sympathise with all of the people from chapters who are trying to figure out their next steps here. It must feel a little like walking on quicksand. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 08/30/11 4:35 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: It is a draft. A few problems were communicated privately nine days ago from WMAU, and from other chapters around the same time. I would like an ETA from the WMF on a public version for comment. This would help. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules, so is a German, French or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country. I believe this is precisely in agreement with what I posted. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party. That was my point. If this were on a Facebook page, we'd have to include in the relationships info that It's complicated. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism laws and trade bans (unless a court has ruled that... etc). This puts imho chapters in an awkward position - being forced to follow laws they cannot reasonably know about unless they hire expensive expertise. It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise. Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve. The exact reason for this seems to be vague to me. I really do hope the board will step forth and makes clear what their reasoning was and is - and doesn't hide behind staff (board members who already did so are being appreciated, but I'm still missing important voices). Is the reason really transparency? Is it about transferring money? Because that is important, but (sometimes easily) fixable. Or is the reasoning you don't like the projects the chapters work on? Because *then* we should have a discussion about that, and not hide behind non-reasons. Lodewijk 2011/8/29 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote: Which activities are these? Copyright and internet law lobbying. This is incorrect. Michael, Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement? -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:55, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism laws and trade bans (unless a court has ruled that... etc). This puts imho chapters in an awkward position - being forced to follow laws they cannot reasonably know about unless they hire expensive expertise. It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of the board to no longer allow chapters to fundraise. Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve. The exact reason for this seems to be vague to me. I really do hope the board will step forth and makes clear what their reasoning was and is - and doesn't hide behind staff (board members who already did so are being appreciated, but I'm still missing important voices). Is the reason really transparency? Is it about transferring money? Because that is important, but (sometimes easily) fixable. Or is the reasoning you don't like the projects the chapters work on? Because *then* we should have a discussion about that, and not hide behind non-reasons. I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build infrastructure for handling hundreds of applications and testing them on anti-terrorism laws, that's up to it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: .. I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build infrastructure for handling hundreds of applications and testing them on anti-terrorism laws, that's up to it. anti-terrorism laws are, hopefully, not going to be a major problem. anti-lobbying restrictions added by WMF are. These restrictions on the chapter grants allow the WMF to continue to say NONE in the relevant sections of its annual 990 form. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:24, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build infrastructure for handling hundreds of applications and testing them on anti-terrorism laws, that's up to it. anti-terrorism laws are, hopefully, not going to be a major problem. anti-lobbying restrictions added by WMF are. These restrictions on the chapter grants allow the WMF to continue to say NONE in the relevant sections of its annual 990 form. What I am saying is that Foundation will have to check every program of every chapter, no matter if it would give one large or per-program grants. And it will have to do no matter if chapters think that it is their problem. What would WMF do: * If it finds whatever unacceptable in a program, it would say: Please, find funds for that at some other place. * If it finds whatever unacceptable too late, chapter for sure wouldn't be internally responsible if it doesn't have a person with relevant knowledge. That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities. Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that will lead into even more delay in allocating grants. And that will become WMF's problem, as the problem is when you plan to spend some money and you don't do that. And about chapters: There are two chapters' Board representatives. And their term is going to be expired in half of the year or so. If chapters are not happy with their current representation, they should choose other persons to take care about their interests. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 29 August 2011 11:51, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities. Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that will lead into even more delay in allocating grants. And that will become WMF's problem, as the problem is when you plan to spend some money and you don't do that. Several chapter representatives already consider WMF's grant programme dysfunctional. The centralisation plan requires the infrastructure to support it, and an assumption of reliability (which is a much stronger requirement than assuming good faith) on those expected to live substantially off grants assigned by the mechanism. But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the central planning is economically successful. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote: Which activities are these? Copyright and internet law lobbying. This is incorrect. Michael, Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement? -- John Vandenberg I hadn't seen this document before, but have now. I retract my comment regarding the chapters being required to comply with U.S. law. I'm not sure what the full justification for the language in the agreement is, and I'd be interested to hear it explained by an expert. ~Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the central planning is economically successful. Thanks to David Richfield, I've realized that this sentence requires explanation. So here it is: Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article sparrow leads to passer and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology. Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized economy. The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said Sparrows are guilty for everything! After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China abandoned centralized economy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the central planning is economically successful. Thanks to David Richfield, I've realized that this sentence requires explanation. So here it is: Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article sparrow leads to passer and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology. Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized economy. The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said Sparrows are guilty for everything! After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China abandoned centralized economy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine Not that I want to carry this diversion too far, but sparrows are normally seed eaters. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:03, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article sparrow leads to passer and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology. Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of the Great Leap Forward during Mao and was a product of centralized economy. The anecdote goes: Mao woke up one day and said Sparrows are guilty for everything! After that, it a country-wide hunt on sparrows have been made. Then, fields without sparrows became easy target for grasshoppers and the next couple of years were known as the time of great famine in China [2]. Eventually, even during Mao's rule, China abandoned centralized economy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine Not that I want to carry this diversion too far, but sparrows are normally seed eaters. Actually, found article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 8/28/2011 10:04 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.comwrote: Which activities are these? Copyright and internet law lobbying. This is incorrect. Michael, Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement? I don't believe I have seen it, no. I gather from the other comments it contains language about grant recipients complying with US law. Without a more thorough review, I'm not in a position to say how necessary such language is or how extensively it would be interpreted with respect to a chapter's overall activities. However, it doesn't change my point that nonprofits can in fact engage in lobbying under US law. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws of their respective jurisdictions. These are more important than the FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals. There is no doubt that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than to play the role of a distrustful parent. +1 I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise locally. (Take a look at the international pages of oxfam, wwf, médecins sans frontières, etc.). Who are we to know better than these people who've been around for like... ever? Surely there is a reason for them doing this the way they do? +1. in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users, we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000 donation. any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we probably do not want to walk. If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make sense. There's a difference between organizational support and organizational takeover. One possible solution might be to not allow chapters to participate in the global fundraiser unless they already have a suitable organization in place, but that could make it more difficult for the WMF to take a piece of the chapter's action. Which brings up the question: how do chapters ever get to the point of being organisationally ready if they never take a crack at doing fundraising on their own? Pleasing donors near you brings on an incomparable motivation to do great things and adapt our mission to what is expected and needed in a given region. Pleasing the Wikimedia Foundation somehow does not, seem to me to have the same potential. You know, the very old parable of giving a fish and teaching to fish... i like that :) additionally we should not forget the entry point to reach a person. building up additional fundraising procedures means additional ways to contact people. do people really want to get spam mail from wikimedia affiliated organizations, plus see people on the street asking to sign long term donation contracts, plus experience other means common with other NGO's? currently i did not hear the foundation is unhappy about the income. so why bother so much tinkering with the status quo? but i heard that wmf is, at least in some cases, unhappy with spending. there should be more intelligent ways to improve spending than micro managing the chapters spending via grant requests, also at a timeline more appropriate to wikipedia ... which is made to stay around at least for a couple of years. imo, it would be wise to take our assets into account when designing the next steps, no matter if it is on the donation side, or on the spending side: 1. a globally visible web page, where a banner is sufficient to reach everybody 2. a culture of byte sized volunteering, everybody doing a little bit but it fits at the end 3. wiki, i.e. make quick, small, non interruptive improvements to finally become the best rupert ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this change? Of those that will be excluded this year (if any decisions on that have been made or are anticipated), how many can expect to meet the requirements for participation next year? Figuring this out may have been part of the Board's research before announcing this change, if so perhaps its been discussed elsewhere. If anyone has the details, I'd be interested to see them. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws of their respective jurisdictions. These are more important than the FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals. There is no doubt that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than to play the role of a distrustful parent. +1 I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise locally. (Take a look at the international pages of oxfam, wwf, médecins sans frontières, etc.). Who are we to know better than these people who've been around for like... ever? Surely there is a reason for them doing this the way they do? +1. in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users, we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000 donation. any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we probably do not want to walk. See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last time around. In the real world, charities determine what their objectives are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific dollar objective in mind. What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with the equivalent of half a million US dollars? And was that target established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out on the back of an envelope? It's certainly not the way that any other charity I know of develops its targets. Now, last year was the first time this process was tried, so nobody was really quite sure how to manage things; however, with the 2010 fundraiser under our belts, not much has happened at the chapter end to examine the models being used. Indeed, many chapters still haven't worked out what to do with last year's windfall, let alone done any advance planning for next year. It's my contention that a very significant percentage of last year's donors in particular believed that they were donating to the Wikimedia Foundation's local office, not to local independent groups, many of which are quite adamant that they are *not* the WMF. Did anyone run a fundraising campaign last year where donors had the choice of whether to donate to a local organization versus the global one? (Donate here to support Wikimedia Chapter activities in XXX country - tax receipt issued vs Donate here to support Wikimedia activities around the world - no tax receipt available) Did local messages clearly delineate how the funds would be distributed, or what the chapter's objectives and activities were? In other words, were donors fully informed about what their donation would be used for? I see last year's fundraiser as an experiment. In some ways, it was amazingly successful - more funds were raised, in total, than ever before. But in other ways it was not - most of the chapters raised far more money than they were in a position to deal with, and the lack of advance planning in this area has raised a lot of questions within the Wikimedia community, and could easily lead to concerns from outside agencies and individuals as well. The hypothetical that we were losing donors because in many countries tax receipts could not be issued has turned out to be false - because many chapters that received a percentage of local donations were still not able to issue tax receipts last year. Realistically, given the basic chapter agreement, there are many that will never be able to obtain the local equivalent of charitable organization status. This isn't a swipe at chapters at all - without exception, the chapters are enthusiastic local drivers of the Wikimedia vision, regardless of their size or location. I have the sense that several chapters have found themselves overwhelmed by the volume of donations they've received, and are genuinely trying to be good stewards of those funds, but the structures simply aren't in place for them to do so. I'd like to see some very serious effort on the part of the WMF to help chapters develop these structures, both for existing chapters, and for the Global South
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28.08.2011 16:46, Risker wrote: On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNERrupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménardnotafi...@gmail.com: +1. in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users, we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000 donation. any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we probably do not want to walk. and could easily lead to concerns from outside agencies and individuals as well. The hypothetical that we were losing donors because in many countries tax receipts could not be issued has turned out to be false - because many chapters that received a percentage of local donations were still not able to issue tax receipts last year. Realistically, given the basic chapter agreement, there are many that will never be able to obtain the local equivalent of charitable organization status. This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need to have a receipt. At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an amount to one national charitable association. A receipt is not requested if the donation is lower than a fixed amount (200 CHF ~300 USD). http://www.wikimedia.ch/index.php?title=Donate/ensetlang=en In general this is valid also for other countries (and in some of them it's sufficient to have a receipt of the transaction). I don't know who has said that the tax receipts have not been issued and the persons were not able to receive the tax exemption, but this is incorrect. In WM CH some receipts have not been issued *automatically* because we have received donations with incomplete data (the address for example), but these persons have never requested one. In general some of them prefer to donate locally because they would be sure that the money is spent for local projects and not for tax exemption. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 16:46, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws of their respective jurisdictions. These are more important than the FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals. There is no doubt that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than to play the role of a distrustful parent. +1 I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise locally. (Take a look at the international pages of oxfam, wwf, médecins sans frontières, etc.). Who are we to know better than these people who've been around for like... ever? Surely there is a reason for them doing this the way they do? +1. in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users, we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000 donation. any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we probably do not want to walk. See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last time around. In the real world, charities determine what their objectives are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific dollar objective in mind. What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with the equivalent of half a million US dollars? And was that target established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out on the back of an envelope? It's certainly not the way that any other charity I know of develops its targets. Now, last year was the first time this process was tried, so nobody was really quite sure how to manage things; what theoretical brainwash is this? we are working since 2005 towards local landing pages, every year little bit more, and we finally got there 2010, including the option to donate to the chapter or the foundation. which proved to be successful. the targets were of course not done via scientific research, but on the back of an envelope. we tried asking the people passing by to give to wikipedia. and they were prepared to give one CHF without thinking, but not 10. so we know quite sure that the donation potential for switzerland might max out at 2 mio CHF / year - if we reach a penetration of 50% of the working population. and of course, have good progress. what we do with the money? have more money than we can deal with? you are joking! did you at any time in your whole life have difficulties to spend money, or did somebody closed your bank account because it is too full? we wire a big chunk of the money to the foundation where it is 0.X % of their income. we wire it despite it feels like spitting into the ocean. the main challenge is then to _not_ spend it, or in other words, not waste it to not go in prison. the board decides on the details and proposes the way to go, the general assembly (all members) decide on the strategy, and the bylaws state the goals. our board is legally responsible towards the swiss law and its easy to just walk to the other side of the street and sue in case of money waste or spending not within the bylaws. to see an example how the spending is scrutinized, subscribe to the german mailing list. this by far superiour cost control than what is existing at the wikimedia foundation and, i would say 99.9 % of the other standard ngo's. we are slow in spending, true. but the donors, at least in switzerland, prefer slow spending to waste. do you know how many employees wikimedia switzerland has? ZERO. we cannot tell if it will make sense that it stays like this, but we are proud that we are better and have less waste than other charities :) we do not need to stand under bridges and in train stations, paying contractors 100% of the first year, 75% of the second years donation and so on so they hunt donators which then make a long year contract to pay us regularly. we do not need to write spam mails to get donators. we do not need to do all this usual ngo thing. we only need good work, and spend wisely. and i guess many people have fun with it, and are
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Hi Risker I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a community member from english wikipedia, do you feel it has been accountable to you or spent it on worthwhile activities for the community? the reality is WMF raised several times more money than all chapters combined, this year's target is 30% or so more than previous year's. Do you think concentration of all that money with one organization and one entity is a smart idea with a global movement like ours? You are taking broad strokes here with chapters, It was a handful of chapters that were allowed to fundraise last year (maybe 8 or 10 at most). Not all of them were rolling in money instantly. it was going to be rolled out to several more chapters this year or so was the plan, until the fundraising summit this year, which everyone from the staff and most of the interested chapters attended. As for generalizations about chapters use of donor money, off the top of my head, I can think of several projects that were possible because of the last fundraiser, Wiki loves Monument, which was eventually rolled out to several other chapters, there were multiple GLAM related activities- Wikipedian in residence programs in Germany and France supported by the chapters this past year. We can't forget the annual cost of Toolserver which was made possible by WMDE's independent fundraising. There were probably more local projects that were planned that we never heard about. I know there were discussions about expanding several projects but now those chapters have all held themselves in light of an uncertain future. Its going to be the end of activities and projects like those, if chapter independence to raise funds is taken away. I completely agreed with Birgitte SB's take on the matter earlier. Do you want WMF to be the sole and only authority for what the entire movement does? Every project, every little activity in their slice of the world or their online community has to be individually approved and sanctioned by WMF. It's taking away independence of these small groups in deciding what's best for their own part of the world or community, somewhere along the line this is getting conflated into issues of accountability that no one really disagrees with, not the chapters themselves. the only solution because of certain chapters mismanagement, is to make every chapter more or less a branch office of WMF. Theo On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws of their respective jurisdictions. These are more important than the FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals. There is no doubt that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than to play the role of a distrustful parent. +1 I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise locally. (Take a look at the international pages of oxfam, wwf, médecins sans frontières, etc.). Who are we to know better than these people who've been around for like... ever? Surely there is a reason for them doing this the way they do? +1. in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users, we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000 donation. any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we probably do not want to walk. See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last time around. In the real world, charities determine what their objectives are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific dollar objective in mind. What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with the equivalent of half a million US dollars? And was that target established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out on the back of an envelope? It's certainly not the way that any other charity I know of develops its
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28 August 2011 14:40, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this change? All except WMDE. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28 August 2011 18:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 August 2011 14:40, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this change? All except WMDE. That depends on what you mean by affected, really. I don't think it will be just WMDE participating in the fundraiser. The WMF has said that it intends to abide by existing agreements, which several chapters had signed before Wikimania. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last time around. In the real world, charities determine what their objectives are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific dollar objective in mind. In the real world, charities also make sure that their target is not completely out of proportion with the fundraising potential they have in a given geography. What's the point of thinking up fantastic programmes for a budget of a million dollars if you know that the maximum your country will ever give to your cause is 20 000 dollars. So I find the exercise to be interesting. What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with the equivalent of half a million US dollars? And was that target established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out on the back of an envelope? It's certainly not the way that any other charity I know of develops its targets. Now, last year was the first time this process was tried, so nobody was really quite sure how to manage things; however, with the 2010 fundraiser under our belts, not much has happened at the chapter end to examine the models being used. Indeed, many chapters still haven't worked out what to do with last year's windfall, let alone done any advance planning for next year. It's my contention that a very significant percentage of last year's donors in particular believed that they were donating to the Wikimedia Foundation's local office, not to local independent groups, many of which are quite adamant that they are *not* the WMF. Did anyone run a fundraising campaign last year where donors had the choice of whether to donate to a local organization versus the global one? (Donate here to support Wikimedia Chapter activities in XXX country - tax receipt issued vs Donate here to support Wikimedia activities around the world - no tax receipt available) Did local messages clearly delineate how the funds would be distributed, or what the chapter's objectives and activities were? In other words, were donors fully informed about what their donation would be used for? I suppose your statement is backed up by some research? As in, you have data to support the fact that a significant percentage of last year's donor believed they were donating to the Wikimedia Foundation's local office? As a matter of fact, I suppose you can also back up the fact that donors even understand what the Foundation (or the chapters for that matter) are and what they do? I'd be happy to see this data, it's cruelly missing. I see last year's fundraiser as an experiment. In some ways, it was amazingly successful - more funds were raised, in total, than ever before. But in other ways it was not - most of the chapters raised far more money than they were in a position to deal with, and the lack of advance planning in this area has raised a lot of questions within the Wikimedia community, and could easily lead to concerns from outside agencies and individuals as well. The hypothetical that we were losing donors because in many countries tax receipts could not be issued has turned out to be false - because many chapters that received a percentage of local donations were still not able to issue tax receipts last year. Realistically, given the basic chapter agreement, there are many that will never be able to obtain the local equivalent of charitable organization status. Did it ever come to you that the reason why chapters raised far more money than they were in a position to deal with, might be: 1) the fact that more and more people want to support the projects altogether (this is gonna stop at some point, the world is finite) 2) the fact that having a local chapter may have had something to do with the far more? I don't have data to back up my statement, so it's just a hypothesis, please take it as such. This isn't a swipe at chapters at all - without exception, the chapters are enthusiastic local drivers of the Wikimedia vision, regardless of their size or location. I have the sense that several chapters have found themselves overwhelmed by the volume of donations they've received, and are genuinely trying to be good stewards of those funds, but the structures simply aren't in place for them to do so. I'd like to see some very serious effort on the part of the WMF to help chapters develop these structures, both for existing chapters, and for the Global South chapters that are currently in early development. And there, I can only agree. Only, this is not exactly the direction we seem to be taking :) Delphine -- @notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto -
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Risker I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a community member from english wikipedia, do you feel it has been accountable to you or spent it on worthwhile activities for the community? the reality is WMF raised several times more money than all chapters combined, this year's target is 30% or so more than previous year's. Do you think concentration of all that money with one organization and one entity is a smart idea with a global movement like ours? In what way is devolving money to many organizations in many countries an *improvement* for accountability, particularly when the standards for transparency and fiscal responsibility are minimal or non-existent? I don't know about Risker, but I don't personally believe the Foundation's money is being misspent. It helps that I know the Foundation is a professional operation, and that it's spending and priorities are disclosed. More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapters in the fundraiser is not, in anyway, an alternative to concentrating money in the WMF. [1]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWlqeHp5ak5uWncauthkey=CKb59_wDhl=en_US#gid=0 Its going to be the end of activities and projects like those, if chapter independence to raise funds is taken away. I completely agreed with Birgitte SB's take on the matter earlier. Do you want WMF to be the sole and only authority for what the entire movement does? Every project, every little activity in their slice of the world or their online community has to be individually approved and sanctioned by WMF. It's taking away independence of these small groups in deciding what's best for their own part of the world or community, somewhere along the line this is getting conflated into issues of accountability that no one really disagrees with, not the chapters themselves. the only solution because of certain chapters mismanagement, is to make every chapter more or less a branch office of WMF. Theo First of all, the chapters can continue to fundraise how they like. There are other methods of fundraising, and many thousands of other non-profit groups that manage to fund themselves without the WMF drive. If your goal is chapter independence, then you should be encouraging chapters to engage in their own fundraising efforts. If they have no source of funding other than the Wikimedia Foundation annual fundraiser, then they are fully yoked to its continuing goodwill and approval. Second, there is no reason to expect that every little expenditure will have to be approved by the WMF in advance. I haven't seen outlines for requesting grants from the Foundation... have you seen documents that suggest the requirements for receiving a grant will be particularly onerous? Perhaps a chapter will establish a budget, submit the budget to the WMF, and have the whole budget funded. That's more along the lines of what I remember Phoebe and others suggesting. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28.08.2011 21:00, Nathan wrote: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ilario Valdellivalde...@gmail.com wrote: This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need to have a receipt. At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an amount to one national charitable association. A receipt is not requested if the donation is lower than a fixed amount (200 CHF ~300 USD). Ilario What you mean is that this is false for Switzerland. I don't think Risker specified Switzerland in that part of her post. ~Nathan I mean in general. I have listed the situation in Switzerland because this is well known by me, but in the other countries it doesn't change a lot. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28.08.2011 21:00, Nathan wrote: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ilario Valdellivalde...@gmail.com wrote: This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need to have a receipt. At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an amount to one national charitable association. A receipt is not requested if the donation is lower than a fixed amount (200 CHF ~300 USD). Ilario What you mean is that this is false for Switzerland. I don't think Risker specified Switzerland in that part of her post. ~Nathan Sorry, I would explain in a better way. What Risker says is not documented, it seems to be an opinion. What I have tried to do is to give a real example of fundraising made by a chapter with tax exemption. So it means that I have documented my words. It could be better if someone can document what he says. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Risker I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a community member from english wikipedia, do you feel it has been accountable to you or spent it on worthwhile activities for the community? the reality is WMF raised several times more money than all chapters combined, this year's target is 30% or so more than previous year's. Do you think concentration of all that money with one organization and one entity is a smart idea with a global movement like ours? In what way is devolving money to many organizations in many countries an *improvement* for accountability, particularly when the standards for transparency and fiscal responsibility are minimal or non-existent? I don't know about Risker, but I don't personally believe the Foundation's money is being misspent. It helps that I know the Foundation is a professional operation, and that it's spending and priorities are disclosed. I never said it was an improvement for accountability, accountability has no relation to what I was asking. Devolving of money into many organizations in many countries is happening and will continue to happen with the fundraising or the grants system. Chapters will still receive the funding from a San Francisco based non-profit in the grants system, rest assured that will not change. What the current model changes is giving to the organization from the same country and leaving it in charge of local activities, some may offer tax-deductibility benefit, some may not. The idea is, since local organizations know local needs better than a global one, they might be in a better position to act. There are too numerous laws and restrictive tax codes to point out why certain countries might have problems when the money for all activities of an organization comes solely from a San Francisco based Non-profit. The movement of money itself, back and forth confounds this problem further. Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US. Then, the current strategic plan for the foundation, calls for an increased focus on 'Global South'. As a 'Global South' resident I can assure you there are restrictive laws about the movement of money from one country to a more affluent one. Since the plan itself calls for attention and focus on these areas, it might make sense to collect and spend money locally(?). Lastly, I think what I am trying to argue for, is having multiple smaller groups doing things independently and locally than one giant head organization that pays the bills. You might think Foundation's money is not being misspent, others might not. I am arguing for decentralization, more independence for local groups. We can have more local GLAM activities and more things like Wiki loves monument or even a better Toolserver. WMF is not built to take on activities like those, or has tried to in my knowledge, in the past. More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapters in the fundraiser is not, in anyway, an alternative to concentrating money in the WMF. That is what I meant when I said WMF collects several times more than all chapters combined, let me add 'locally' if it helps. I also said, only a handful of chapters were allowed to fundraise, an option which was being planned to be offered to other chapters before it was taken away. You also might want to look at the board letter and read the point about why global south shouldn't get more of the proceeds than global north, since 80% is from North America as you pointed out. [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWlqeHp5ak5uWncauthkey=CKb59_wDhl=en_US#gid=0 Its going to be the end of activities and projects like those, if chapter independence to raise funds is taken away. I completely agreed with Birgitte SB's take on the matter earlier. Do you want WMF to be the sole and only authority for what the entire movement does? Every project, every little activity in their slice of the world or their online community has to be individually approved and sanctioned by WMF. It's taking away independence of these small groups in deciding what's best for their own part of the world or community, somewhere along the line this is getting conflated into issues of accountability that no one really disagrees with, not the chapters themselves. the only solution because of certain chapters mismanagement, is to make every chapter more or less a
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
*That depends on what you mean by affected, really. I don't think it will be just WMDE participating in the fundraiser. The WMF has said that it intends to abide by existing agreements, which several chapters had signed before Wikimania. * AFAIK, yes. Only WMDE will run fundraising. All chapters who signed the agreement before wikimania received a Grant Agreement to replace the fundraising one, and all chapters who should had signed the agreement in Wikimania were adviced to do a normal grant. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.* On 28 August 2011 18:10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 August 2011 18:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 August 2011 14:40, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this change? All except WMDE. That depends on what you mean by affected, really. I don't think it will be just WMDE participating in the fundraiser. The WMF has said that it intends to abide by existing agreements, which several chapters had signed before Wikimania. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last time around. In the real world, charities determine what their objectives are for the year, cost them out, and then fundraise with that specific dollar objective in mind. In the real world, charities also make sure that their target is not completely out of proportion with the fundraising potential they have in a given geography. What's the point of thinking up fantastic programmes for a budget of a million dollars if you know that the maximum your country will ever give to your cause is 20 000 dollars. So I find the exercise to be interesting. I think we are saying the same thing, in different ways. Charities/chapters should not be fundraising for targets they cannot realistically meet, either by developing program plans that will cost considerably more than they are likely to be able to support financially, or by raising more money than they can justify by their ability to provide programs. It is two faces of the same coin. What, pray tell, will the Swiss chapter do with the equivalent of half a million US dollars? And was that target established by any particular research, or was it some figures worked out on the back of an envelope? It's certainly not the way that any other charity I know of develops its targets. Now, last year was the first time this process was tried, so nobody was really quite sure how to manage things; however, with the 2010 fundraiser under our belts, not much has happened at the chapter end to examine the models being used. Indeed, many chapters still haven't worked out what to do with last year's windfall, let alone done any advance planning for next year. It's my contention that a very significant percentage of last year's donors in particular believed that they were donating to the Wikimedia Foundation's local office, not to local independent groups, many of which are quite adamant that they are *not* the WMF. Did anyone run a fundraising campaign last year where donors had the choice of whether to donate to a local organization versus the global one? (Donate here to support Wikimedia Chapter activities in XXX country - tax receipt issued vs Donate here to support Wikimedia activities around the world - no tax receipt available) Did local messages clearly delineate how the funds would be distributed, or what the chapter's objectives and activities were? In other words, were donors fully informed about what their donation would be used for? I suppose your statement is backed up by some research? As in, you have data to support the fact that a significant percentage of last year's donor believed they were donating to the Wikimedia Foundation's local office? As a matter of fact, I suppose you can also back up the fact that donors even understand what the Foundation (or the chapters for that matter) are and what they do? I'd be happy to see this data, it's cruelly missing. It's been 10 months since last I saw the landing pages for various chapters (and would have no idea where to find them now), and I saw them before the fundraiser went live so some changes may have been made after I saw them. Bearing that in mind, one of the concerns that came to my mind even then was that many of them did not make it explicitly clear that XX percent of the donation was going to and independent local chapter. There was also a significant lack of fiduciary information about the chapter entities to which their donation was going - such as links to audited financial statements, operational or strategic plans, current programs, expansion plans, budgets, identities of the chapter board members, and so on. All of this information was available in some form or other from the non-chapter landing pages. Indeed, I never could figure out from any of the chapter landing pages what percentage of the donation stayed local and what percentage would be submitted to the WMF. In other words, I *knew* that these were chapter landing pages, I knew the money was going to chapters, and even still it wasn't immediately obvious to me that the money was going to a separate entity (the chapter) and not just a local branch directly controlled by the WMF - or to the global WMF fundraising pool. I see last year's fundraiser as an experiment. In some ways, it was amazingly successful - more funds were raised, in total, than ever before. But in other ways it was not - most of the chapters raised far more money than they were in a position to deal with, and the lack of advance planning in this area has raised a lot of questions within the Wikimedia community, and could easily lead to concerns from outside agencies and individuals as well. The
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011de10...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Risker I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a community member from english wikipedia, do you feel it has been accountable to you or spent it on worthwhile activities for the community? the reality is WMF raised several times more money than all chapters combined, this year's target is 30% or so more than previous year's. Do you think concentration of all that money with one organization and one entity is a smart idea with a global movement like ours? In what way is devolving money to many organizations in many countries an *improvement* for accountability, particularly when the standards for transparency and fiscal responsibility are minimal or non-existent? I don't know about Risker, but I don't personally believe the Foundation's money is being misspent. It helps that I know the Foundation is a professional operation, and that it's spending and priorities are disclosed. If we are talking about the money raised in the country itself how is that devolving. That seems too much like the financial model used by the business agents for ladies of the night. The issue has nothing to do with whether Foundation funds are being misspent. Having the Foundation as a professional operation is of absolutely no interest to me.. Professional operations tend to develop different priorities from amateur ones. More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapters in the fundraiser is not, in anyway, an alternative to concentrating money in the WMF. [1]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWlqeHp5ak5uWncauthkey=CKb59_wDhl=en_US#gid=0 That link shows 67.75% as being from the USA. Its going to be the end of activities and projects like those, if chapter independence to raise funds is taken away. I completely agreed with Birgitte SB's take on the matter earlier. Do you want WMF to be the sole and only authority for what the entire movement does? Every project, every little activity in their slice of the world or their online community has to be individually approved and sanctioned by WMF. It's taking away independence of these small groups in deciding what's best for their own part of the world or community, somewhere along the line this is getting conflated into issues of accountability that no one really disagrees with, not the chapters themselves. the only solution because of certain chapters mismanagement, is to make every chapter more or less a branch office of WMF. Theo First of all, the chapters can continue to fundraise how they like. There are other methods of fundraising, and many thousands of other non-profit groups that manage to fund themselves without the WMF drive. If your goal is chapter independence, then you should be encouraging chapters to engage in their own fundraising efforts. If they have no source of funding other than the Wikimedia Foundation annual fundraiser, then they are fully yoked to its continuing goodwill and approval. I have no problem with this. Chapters should be made to understand the consequences of swallowing poison pills. Second, there is no reason to expect that every little expenditure will have to be approved by the WMF in advance. I haven't seen outlines for requesting grants from the Foundation... have you seen documents that suggest the requirements for receiving a grant will be particularly onerous? Perhaps a chapter will establish a budget, submit the budget to the WMF, and have the whole budget funded. That's more along the lines of what I remember Phoebe and others suggesting. Due diligence requires management to be wary of what they have no reason to expect. For a person who hasn't seen grant request outlines you do a lot of speculation about what they don't contain. To the extent that chapters require grants, it is wholly reasonable that they establish the need for those grants, and be accountable for them when they receive them. Beyond the startup stage chapters should strive to have independent core funding. so as not to require WMF grants to fund core operations. That's an important part of being responsible and accountable; national laws too play a big role in establishing accountability and transparency. It would be irresponsible for a chapter board member to base his policy stands on the suggested interpretation of one WMF board member. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Theo writes: Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US. I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements. So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that it's not a question of whose rules are better, whose motives are better, who is more trustworthy, etc. I believe it's appropriate for everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly different. This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules. I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately) attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” (See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .) --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Bearing that in mind, one of the concerns that came to my mind even then was that many of them did not make it explicitly clear that XX percent of the donation was going to and independent local chapter. There was also a significant lack of fiduciary information about the chapter entities to which their donation was going - such as links to audited financial statements, operational or strategic plans, current programs, expansion plans, budgets, identities of the chapter board members, and so on. All of this information was available in some form or other from the non-chapter landing pages. Indeed, I never could figure out from any of the chapter landing pages what percentage of the donation stayed local and what percentage would be submitted to the WMF. Oh, WMF landing page contains so many links to all the things you mention (especially comparing to WMDE's or WMFR's landing page). In other words, I *knew* that these were chapter landing pages, I knew the money was going to chapters, and even still it wasn't immediately obvious to me that the money was going to a separate entity (the chapter) and not just a local branch directly controlled by the WMF - or to the global WMF fundraising pool. And you assume most people even know what WMF is and what is the difference between WMF and chapters? Come on, go to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate and count how many times Wikimedia is mentioned (answer: 3, 2 times in the footer). Then count how many times Wikipedia is mentioned (11 times in the main text). People are donating to Wikipedia, not WMF, and WMF knows that and hence designs the fundraising messages in that way (remember the Wikipedia CEO incident?). Chapters are much more honest in this respect. -vvv ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28 August 2011 21:56, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: *That depends on what you mean by affected, really. I don't think it will be just WMDE participating in the fundraiser. The WMF has said that it intends to abide by existing agreements, which several chapters had signed before Wikimania. * AFAIK, yes. Only WMDE will run fundraising. All chapters who signed the agreement before wikimania received a Grant Agreement to replace the fundraising one, and all chapters who should had signed the agreement in Wikimania were adviced to do a normal grant. That's what the WMF wanted to do, but it depends on the chapters agreeing to waive the existing agreements. Has that happened? I don't think it has. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28.08.2011 23:47, Mike Godwin wrote: Theo writes: Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US. of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly different. This is interesting because what has been pointed out it's that the chapters are insecure and they are risky. This is incomprehensible for chapters that receive an audit every year (audit done by an external company). I would say that in this case what is insecure is not the chapter, which is absolutely complaint with the local law, but it's insecure and unreliable the system of control applied by WMF. The chapters must take care of the local law, and this is sufficient and valid to drive a local fundraising. If the chapters are really independent and they are linked to WMF only with some agreements, I don't understand why we must speak about the US law for an European chapter. The WMF applies the US law to all of their affairs and can monitor and audit the relation with the chapters, but further these relations, the US law stops its validity. I agree that the German model is not valid for all chapters, and this happens for a lot of questions, one important question is that the WM DE manage different quantity of donations and that WM DE has chosen a different organization of the voluntary service. As to evaluate the maturity of a chapter we cannot compare it with WM DE, at the same time we cannot compare the reliability of one chapter applying a law in force in another country. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Several points in reply to Theo: 1) You don't need to argue the value of having chapters around the world. No one debating that. It's accepted that effective global outreach requires effective local partners, and that local chapters are the way to achieve the best results. I think its generally well known that there are countries where it is problematic to receive large amounts of money from foreign organizations, or to send money overseas. But... 2) Organizations that receive money under the aegis of the WMF need to understand that the WMF has a legal and ethical duty to ensure that the funds are well spent. This isn't a US vs. other places argument - its a the WMF has to meet its obligations to the community argument. As an organization that strives to be far more accountable and transparent to the public than a normal non-profit, these obligations greatly exceed the minimum requirements of law. I'm sure many nations have strict laws governing the operations of non-profits, and we all hope and expect that all chapters meet and exceed these minimum requirements... but the chapters must meet the Foundation's expectations for transparency and fiscal responsibility, not just the what is required by law. 3) Your point about the nature of non-profit organizations doesn't make sense as a response to what I said. Perhaps you can re-read what I wrote and reconsider your response. Regardless, I'm not sure I understand exactly why people opposed to the new requirements of the WMF are ignoring the obvious fact that chapters can continue to raise funds on their own. Grants, some sorts of partnerships, direct contributions, etc. The Board letter is not You can't raise any funds at all its You have to do X, Y and Z in order to join the WMF fundraiser. Let's just reiterate the requirements described by the Board letter: ** An organization can directly receive donor funds as a payment processor if the following criteria are met: ** There is sufficient money raised in the geography to merit the logistical effort. ** The organization offers tax deductibility or other incentives to local donors. ** Regulatory issues about any international funds flows are fully resolved. ** The organization's current financial resources are not enough to fund proposed program work. ** The Foundation can confidently assure donors to the chapter that their donations will be safeguarded, that our movement's transparency principles will be met, and that spending will be in line with our mission and with the messages used to attract donors. * The donation process should clearly disclose basic facts about the organization receiving the donation.* Tax deductibility may be a major challenge or impossible in some jurisdictions. Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters? Here's how I interpret what the Board has written: (a) Regulatory issues have to be resolved, which was true (in order to protect local organizations from liability) regardless of this letter. (b) Having many times more money than planned is a risk obvious to anyone. The WMF is trying to prevent a situation where chapters have huge bank accounts but no organizational capacity or financial controls. That means diligent and clear accounting according to international accounting standards, controls against the risk of theft, fraud or misappropriation, and outside independent audits. Such demands are the basic responsibility of the WMF to donors it refers to chapters. (c) Chapters who receive money from the WMF should disclose in detail how much money they've received and how it is being spent, to the WMF and the movement community. As above, funds should be safeguarded by appropriate financial controls (which may or may not be mandated by law in any jurisdiction). Money received through the WMF should be spent solely on movement goals. (d) Chapters receiving money should disclose to donors the chapters' nature, history, composition and leadership. Why anyone should object to these requirements is hard for me to understand. I can see why chapters would be perturbed about needing to meet them on a short timeline, but generally speaking they should all have had these as aims to begin with. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters? Because that's its effect: The entire system of chapters, except WMDE, is hereby recentralised. Thanks for your hard work, everyone! Saying nice things about how much you like decentralisation does not change the effect. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 08/28/11 2:47 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: Theo writes: Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US. I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements. Yes, and my impression is that there is even less international agreement on this than there is on copyright. I agree that comparing rules to see which country has better rules will get us nowhere. A key feature considered by the Chapters Committee in recognizing chapters is: The chapter must have a legal structure/corporation that is legally independant from the Wikimedia Foundation. This either means something or it doesn't. So while the WMF is clearly a U.S. nonprofit, so too are the chapters comparably so in their own countries. What may be important here is the nature of the fundraising agreement. We need to ask such questions as whether the WMF collects money from foreign territories on its own behalf or as an agent of the relevant national chapter. So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that it's not a question of whose rules are better, whose motives are better, who is more trustworthy, etc. I believe it's appropriate for everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly different. Perhaps the faulty premise that has led to this latest round of debates is that a single one-size-fits-all model could be developed. The easy way out can end up being the most difficult. My understanding is that the people who attended the Vienna meeting were disappointed that it was not called for the purpose of negotiation. This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules. Yes, but the chapters (other than those in the US) are not. I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately) attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” (See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .) The funding problem is a simple matter of relativity. Rayu ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters? Because that's its effect: The entire system of chapters, except WMDE, is hereby recentralised. Thanks for your hard work, everyone! Saying nice things about how much you like decentralisation does not change the effect. - d. Other than saying You're recentralising the chapters by forcing us to raise / receive money through the WMF! no one has really adequately described how this is the case. Chapters were only participating in the fundraiser for one year. Even then, they relied on the WMF to attract and refer donors. At worst, chapters are as decentralised as they were prior to the 2010 fundraiser. Accounting to the WMF for how money is managed and spent does not seem like such an extraordinary requirement that people should react as if the chapters were being scrapped. What did they want to do with the money that this is an impossible burden? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Hi Mike I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not an international one based in another country. I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules, so is a German, French or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party. I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of charitable funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in Global south). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving them time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started, doesn't address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money from all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now, but in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be given freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address most of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund collection (it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through a grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time. Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we stick to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to develop what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there is no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues. Theo On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Theo writes: Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US. I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are more transparent and fiscally responsible than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements. So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that it's not a question of whose rules are better, whose motives are better, who is more trustworthy, etc. I believe it's appropriate for everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly different. This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules. I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately) attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” (See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .) --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Mike I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not an international one based in another country. I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules, so is a German, French or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party. I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of charitable funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in Global south). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving them time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started, doesn't address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money from all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now, but in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be given freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address most of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund collection (it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through a grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time. Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we stick to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to develop what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there is no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues. Theo The whole idea of requiring non-US chapters to abide by US law is a strawman. No one has suggested, anywhere, that chapters need to follow U.S. law. What has been suggested, by the letter and by other comments, is that the WMF must follow US law, including in how it works with international organisations and donations that flow to them through the WMF. Additionally, the WMF has self-imposed obligations beyond the law. In order to meet both its legal and other obligations, the WMF needs to be satisfied that funds are being managed and spent appropriately. This requires a WMF one size fits all general policy; WM DE, WM FR, WM CH etc. may be so sophisticated that assurances and disclosures to the WMF are unnecessary, but this can't be said for all chapters or chapters not yet established. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote: On 8/29/11 1:45 AM, Nathan wrote: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote: Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters? Because that's its effect: The entire system of chapters, except WMDE, is hereby recentralised. Thanks for your hard work, everyone! Saying nice things about how much you like decentralisation does not change the effect. - d. Other than saying You're recentralising the chapters by forcing us to raise / receive money through the WMF! no one has really adequately described how this is the case. Chapters were only participating in the fundraiser for one year. UH ??? One year ??? Florence True, I misspoke. Twelve chapters participated in 2010, 9 in 2009, 6 in 2007. Apologies for the error. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
In line replies to Nathan. On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Several points in reply to Theo: 1) You don't need to argue the value of having chapters around the world. No one debating that. It's accepted that effective global outreach requires effective local partners, and that local chapters are the way to achieve the best results. I think its generally well known that there are countries where it is problematic to receive large amounts of money from foreign organizations, or to send money overseas. But... We agree. 2) Organizations that receive money under the aegis of the WMF need to understand that the WMF has a legal and ethical duty to ensure that the funds are well spent. This isn't a US vs. other places argument - its a the WMF has to meet its obligations to the community argument. As an organization that strives to be far more accountable and transparent to the public than a normal non-profit, these obligations greatly exceed the minimum requirements of law. I'm sure many nations have strict laws governing the operations of non-profits, and we all hope and expect that all chapters meet and exceed these minimum requirements... but the chapters must meet the Foundation's expectations for transparency and fiscal responsibility, not just the what is required by law. Actually its under the aegis of Wikipedia, someone here pointed out a recent landing page where Wikipedia is mentioned at least a dozen times and Wikimedia 3-4. You might recall the last fundraiser and Director of Wikipedia incident with one of the banners, those are 2 distinct things. The entire notion that WMF has to meet its obligation to the community is a far-reaching statement, if you've been on Foundation-l long enough, you know most people here might dispute that, regardless of your opinion. There are couple of threads on Foundation-l already, that disputes if WMF meets its own obligations to the community. And then there is the problem that the foundation never laid out those expectation of transparency and responsibility and said X chapter fails and Y doesn't. It did, however remove all chapters (except WMDE) from fundraising all together. 3) Your point about the nature of non-profit organizations doesn't make sense as a response to what I said. Perhaps you can re-read what I wrote and reconsider your response. Regardless, I'm not sure I understand exactly why people opposed to the new requirements of the WMF are ignoring the obvious fact that chapters can continue to raise funds on their own. Grants, some sorts of partnerships, direct contributions, etc. The Board letter is not You can't raise any funds at all its You have to do X, Y and Z in order to join the WMF fundraiser. Let me reiterate, Non-profits such as Oxfam have local organizations that they direct funds to. When an individual gives to Oxfam he's probably giving to his local organization. When you visit Oxfam.com you will see a box with the nearest local organization, you can donate to, on your right- that is a model followed by several large Non-profits. Now, how that fits into the nature of Wikipedia and the nature of fundraising - WMF tried several other methods of fundraising as did chapters, but they all paled in comparison to a banner on Wikipedia. WMF has been relying on that method primarily, but since it's only US based, it can't offer the same tax-deductibility in all those countries, that's where chapters might come in (See your point 1) where they might be able to raise funds WMF simply can not and do outreach better than a global organization (as in the case of Oxfam), then there is the issue of entitlement, should WMF be the sole beneficiary of all proceeds raised in the name of Wikipedia? Let's just reiterate the requirements described by the Board letter: ** An organization can directly receive donor funds as a payment processor if the following criteria are met: ** There is sufficient money raised in the geography to merit the logistical effort. ** The organization offers tax deductibility or other incentives to local donors. ** Regulatory issues about any international funds flows are fully resolved. ** The organization's current financial resources are not enough to fund proposed program work. ** The Foundation can confidently assure donors to the chapter that their donations will be safeguarded, that our movement's transparency principles will be met, and that spending will be in line with our mission and with the messages used to attract donors. * The donation process should clearly disclose basic facts about the organization receiving the donation.* Someone made this distinction a while ago, do remember that it is WMF's board. Not the movement's, the chapter's or the community's. Its responsible for WMF governance not the movement's. Tax deductibility may be a major challenge or impossible in some jurisdictions. Which other criteria
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Mike I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not an international one based in another country. I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules, so is a German, French or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party. I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of charitable funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in Global south). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving them time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started, doesn't address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money from all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now, but in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be given freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address most of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund collection (it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through a grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time. Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we stick to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to develop what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there is no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues. Theo The whole idea of requiring non-US chapters to abide by US law is a strawman. No one has suggested, anywhere, that chapters need to follow U.S. law. What has been suggested, by the letter and by other comments, is that the WMF must follow US law, including in how it works with international organisations and donations that flow to them through the WMF. Please read points 4 and 5.[1] Let me quote This agreement is subject to the laws of the United States of America and the State of California, without regard to conflict of law rules, point 4 lays out the venue to be San Francisco County, California for any litigation between the parties. Additionally, the WMF has self-imposed obligations beyond the law. In order to meet both its legal and other obligations, the WMF needs to be satisfied that funds are being managed and spent appropriately. This requires a WMF one size fits all general policy; WM DE, WM FR, WM CH etc. may be so sophisticated that assurances and disclosures to the WMF are unnecessary, but this can't be said for all chapters or chapters not yet established. You are giving undue weight when you say self-imposed obligations beyond the law but that is a matter of opinion. Actually I never argued that sophisticated chapters don't require assurance and disclosure, they do, and most of them do comply. There are however no requirements set forth by WMF on what to comply on. There are 35+ chapters in total, only about 10 or so have participated in fundraiser, this ability was rolled out to more chapters, it still doesn't cover even half of them. I do believe that there are local laws not permitting them from joining or their own choice or infrastructure, either way, there is a development cycle that most chapters go through before they join fundraising. This would prevent maturation and effectively, put the current conditions in stasis. Theo [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011/Chapters/Fundraising_Agreement#Legal_stuff ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: If the WMF plans for grants to be the interim method of funding for developing chapters (aside from that raised independently by the chapters themselves) then I expect that they will tweak the process to account for the specific issues involved (like not wanting to bury chapters in book-length paperwork requirements). Oh, really? Do you really believe that current Foundation staff is capable of handling at least 30 different organization around the world? I doubt it. Even now, the situation is fairly ridiculous: they sign the same (am I correct?) agreement with all chapters, regardless of how much would this chapter get, what is its budget, how difficult is it to transfer money to and fro. The problem with over-budget money may be solved fairly easily: just make an independent, per-chapter-tailored fundraiser. If UK chapter collects its budget faster than WMF, just change their landing page to WMF, and they will not get unused money! Neither will they have to transfer anything to WMF. If some other chapter does not collect its budget, make its fundraiser longer. Some chapters are doomed to be locally underfunded; they can apply for WMF grants. Besides, some chapters are located in countries where December fundraising is legally problematic. But please, get rid of the idea that WMF can act in a similar way to all chapters and sign the same agreement. Instead of forcing one-way funding model, Foundation should *really* work on the way it communicates with chapters. Either by loosening the control or by increasing the amount of time spent on them. Honestly, I believe that right now it would extremely irresponsible from their side to take obligations of approving and controlling the budget of 30 chapters, as am almost certain they would not be able to fulfill them adequately. --vvv ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Mike I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the best people to address local laws and rules are local organizations, and not an international one based in another country. I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules, so is a German, French or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own country. The rules might be more or less stringent but they all have to comply in order to function. What confounds these requirements is when they will also have to abide by US rules on top of their own national ones which doesn't even address accountability to the community itself by either party. I absolutely agree that it is not possible to come up with a single model that fits all when you're dealing with International transfers of charitable funds (Even one way donations to WMF is more of a problem in Global south). But removing all chapters from fundraising and not even giving them time to find a local solution, less than an year after they started, doesn't address those. The fundraiser is global, WMF is still collecting money from all of these places, the majority of it might be from North America now, but in order for that to change or improve, local organizations have to be given freedom to decide what works for them. WMF would still prob. meet most of its own targets. The issue with the grants model is it doesn't address most of the issues, just removes local/chapter involvement from fund collection (it limits their liability too). Money still goes from one country to another, where a local organization might even already exist, capable of being tax-deductible and locally responsible, then it comes back through a grant from a US non-profit to the same non-profit every time. Wikimedia Deutschland was able to get to a point of being accountable because it had the chance to do so itself. And that is my point, if we stick to our tenets we should assume Good faith and give them a chance to develop what works for them, that will not happen with the grants model - there is no need to. Local organization are the best fit for local issues. Theo The whole idea of requiring non-US chapters to abide by US law is a strawman. No one has suggested, anywhere, that chapters need to follow U.S. law. What has been suggested, by the letter and by other comments, is that the WMF must follow US law, including in how it works with international organisations and donations that flow to them through the WMF. You're strawman is alive. If the chapters are funded by the WMF, non-US chapters need to abide by US law. If all of the fundraising money goes to the WMF, who then distributes it to chapters via grants, all chapters must comply with the US regulations regarding use of money by a 501(c)(3) charity, and any additional constraints that the WMF puts on these grants in order to minimise its own risks and simplify its own compliance checking. By doing this, the WMF is taking on more risk, rather than less. And it is taking on more work, as it will need to ensure that all chapters expenditure from these grants is compliant with US regulations. There are several chapters whose existing program includes activities that are acceptable under their own laws, but will not be able to be funded by WMF because of the US regulations. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Few last points before I duck out of this conversation for awhile... There are international accounting standards (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Accounting_Standards_Board). It's not necessary that all organizations follow them to the letter, obviously, because not all nations (including the United States) accept them. The point is, I'm sure, that in order for the WMF to achieve the points laid out in the Board letter, they will need to see certain types of information from the chapters. To have confidence in that information, some common understanding of how reports are developed will have to be agreed upon. I don't have the background on the Board's decision necessary to understand why they chose the particular timing they did. If it were me, knowing only what I know, I would have deferred the effect of the change until the next fundraiser. But, that carries risks - if they were informed of a material problem and chose to defer for a year, they could incur some serious liability. I believe they see the Wikimedia movement as an international endeavor, and the chapters as an integral part of it, and I remain convinced that the Board members have the best interests of the Foundation and the movement at heart. Having said that, Assume Good Faith is not how corporations with lots of money protect themselves. It's a good principle when interacting with people, but corporations (for profit or otherwise) need to establish controls based on the potential for bad actors. It's not about distrusting partners, its about fulfilling a fiduciary duty of care for the corporation that will survive changes in personnel and circumstance. Finally, the WMF certainly does have an obligation to meet the expectations of the community in many areas of concern. That doesn't mean they can or should reveal every detail, nor does it mean it will always successfully meet the expectations of every individual or even the community as a whole. Perhaps Theo's experience with this list is different than mine, but after 4 years of subscribing I can't think of anyone who doesn't believe the Foundation is responsible to the Wikimedia community. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:15 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: You're strawman is alive. If the chapters are funded by the WMF, non-US chapters need to abide by US law. If all of the fundraising money goes to the WMF, who then distributes it to chapters via grants, all chapters must comply with the US regulations regarding use of money by a 501(c)(3) charity, and any additional constraints that the WMF puts on these grants in order to minimise its own risks and simplify its own compliance checking. By doing this, the WMF is taking on more risk, rather than less. And it is taking on more work, as it will need to ensure that all chapters expenditure from these grants is compliant with US regulations. There are several chapters whose existing program includes activities that are acceptable under their own laws, but will not be able to be funded by WMF because of the US regulations. -- John Vandenberg Which activities are these? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Which activities are these? Copyright and internet law lobbying. --vvv ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote: Which activities are these? Copyright and internet law lobbying. This is incorrect. The foundation can engage in lobbying under US regulations if it wishes. Restrictions on lobbying by nonprofits are a limitation in degree, not a prohibition. Lobbying simply cannot be too significant a portion of the nonprofit's activities. If a nonprofit does engage in lobbying, the IRS has various tests that can be applied to determine if its tax exemption is jeopardized. The reason for the popular misconception is that most nonprofits avoid lobbying altogether out of an abundance of caution. What the foundation actually cannot do is contribute to political candidates or support partisan activities, those are categorically prohibited. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote: Which activities are these? Copyright and internet law lobbying. This is incorrect. Michael, Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agreement? -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
2011/8/11 Jimmy Walesjwa...@wikia-inc.com On 8/10/11 8:51 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe will make chapters ineffective. Chapters are not being centralized. I don't know how I can be more clear. The idea that the only thing that can make chapters really decentralized is the very narrow question of who actually processes the donation is mistaken. --Jimbo Decentralization would be possibly maintained if grants were unrestricted ones. But this is not what is being done. Grants are restricted. When chapters used to fundraise themselves, they had the power to decide their programs, as fit an organization that is independant. Chapters are losing that power. From the moment Wikimedia Foundation gives grants according to specific projects they approve or do not approve, they actually decide what the chapter does or does not. Chapters are being centralized. I don't know how we can be more clear on that. Florence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 08/26/11 2:26 PM, Nathan wrote: On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijklodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Hi Jimmy, There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other aspects to be considered, such as transparancy. However, imho fundraising through chapters should remain the best way). Lodewijk, I don't think the chapters are barred from all fundraising... At most, they are at risk of not being able to participate in the global WMF fundraiser. They can still raise funds on their own through other methods. Maybe such other methods are more time consuming, difficult and less lucrative... But there are innovative substitutes for the WMF annual fundraiser, I'm sure. I agree with that much. Chapters should be warned not to become dependent on the WMF fundraiser. Information about such innovative substitutes may need to be more freely shared. The result may indeed be decreased revenues, but if one of the complaints is that some chapters are sitting on piles of money that they don't use there may not be much harm to that. In any case, the barriers to participation relate to the organizational capacity of the chapters and the associated risks. A chapter that has financial controls and active leadership should be able to meet the WMFs requirements (with the exception of tax deduction eligibility, based on jurisdiction); a chapter that does not puts both their funds and their public reputation at risk. As the host of the fundraiser and the mark owner, the WMF shares in that risk - and it is both reasonable and necessary that the Foundation adhere to and require minimum standards of accountability in order to mitigate the risk of fraud, waste and abuse. If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws of their respective jurisdictions. These are more important than the FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals. There is no doubt that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than to play the role of a distrustful parent. If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make sense. There's a difference between organizational support and organizational takeover. One possible solution might be to not allow chapters to participate in the global fundraiser unless they already have a suitable organization in place, but that could make it more difficult for the WMF to take a piece of the chapter's action. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws of their respective jurisdictions. These are more important than the FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals. There is no doubt that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than to play the role of a distrustful parent. +1 I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise locally. (Take a look at the international pages of oxfam, wwf, médecins sans frontières, etc.). Who are we to know better than these people who've been around for like... ever? Surely there is a reason for them doing this the way they do? If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make sense. There's a difference between organizational support and organizational takeover. One possible solution might be to not allow chapters to participate in the global fundraiser unless they already have a suitable organization in place, but that could make it more difficult for the WMF to take a piece of the chapter's action. Which brings up the question: how do chapters ever get to the point of being organisationally ready if they never take a crack at doing fundraising on their own? Pleasing donors near you brings on an incomparable motivation to do great things and adapt our mission to what is expected and needed in a given region. Pleasing the Wikimedia Foundation somehow does not, seem to me to have the same potential. You know, the very old parable of giving a fish and teaching to fish... Best, Delphine ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise locally. Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the plan was, but then Ting clarified that no such decision had been made. I haven't seen anything since then about what the long-term system will be. I suspect everyone is concentrating on the next fundraiser rather that subsequent ones, and that's understandable. We do need to work out what we're going to do after this one sooner rather than later, though. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Hi Jimmy, There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other aspects to be considered, such as transparancy. However, imho fundraising through chapters should remain the best way). Lodewijk, I don't think the chapters are barred from all fundraising... At most, they are at risk of not being able to participate in the global WMF fundraiser. They can still raise funds on their own through other methods. Maybe such other methods are more time consuming, difficult and less lucrative... But there are innovative substitutes for the WMF annual fundraiser, I'm sure. Yes, there are. But no, there aren't. For anyone who's been involved in grants proposals, the Wikimedia Foundation included, it is clear that grants are often restricted, or come with strings attached, and that you end up building an ugly statue in front of your local swimming pool to please a very generous but extremely demanding big donor. Not that these ways shouldn't be explored, but I find the idea that community donations (or to put it more broadly: individual donations) are much more powerful to bring forward what we're doing than mega grants that will ever only tackle one side of the mission. Grants monitored by the Wikimedia Foundation will, yes, go towards the mission as a whole, but what about local specificities? Will they be considered part of the mission? Wait and see... In any case, the barriers to participation relate to the organizational capacity of the chapters and the associated risks. A chapter that has financial controls and active leadership should be able to meet the WMFs requirements (with the exception of tax deduction eligibility, based on jurisdiction); a chapter that does not puts both their funds and their public reputation at risk. As the host of the fundraiser and the mark owner, the WMF shares in that risk - and it is both reasonable and necessary that the Foundation adhere to and require minimum standards of accountability in order to mitigate the risk of fraud, waste and abuse. If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make sense. Seriously, one does not go without the other. You can't really organize to do something if you don't ever do it. Learning by doing is the best school, and while we can't let people fail, surely we can help chapters succeed, and not by assuming that they're unable to start with, on the contrary. Cheers, Delphine -- @notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 08/27/11 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménardnotafi...@gmail.com: I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise locally. Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the plan was, but then Ting clarified that no such decision had been made. I haven't seen anything since then about what the long-term system will be. I suspect everyone is concentrating on the next fundraiser rather that subsequent ones, and that's understandable. We do need to work out what we're going to do after this one sooner rather than later, though. If Sue and Ting are so much at odds, maybe the rest of us should duck. Long term funding is a matter of great interest to all of us, and it's discussion should be ongoing without regard to the current campaign. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 08/27/11 4:34 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make sense. There's a difference between organizational support and organizational takeover. One possible solution might be to not allow chapters to participate in the global fundraiser unless they already have a suitable organization in place, but that could make it more difficult for the WMF to take a piece of the chapter's action. Which brings up the question: how do chapters ever get to the point of being organisationally ready if they never take a crack at doing fundraising on their own? Pleasing donors near you brings on an incomparable motivation to do great things and adapt our mission to what is expected and needed in a given region. Pleasing the Wikimedia Foundation somehow does not, seem to me to have the same potential. You know, the very old parable of giving a fish and teaching to fish... Legal and financial arguments aside, if the perception grows that the WMF is trying to concentrate decision-making in San Francisco it is bound to inspire nationalist sentiments in many countries. I really don't think it's prepared to handle that. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28 August 2011 01:19, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: If Sue and Ting are so much at odds, maybe the rest of us should duck. I think it was a misunderstanding on Sue's part, rather than any actual disagreement. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Hi Jimmy, There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other aspects to be considered, such as transparancy. However, imho fundraising through chapters should remain the best way). * Having one organization spreading around money is going to lead, sooner or later, to that organization solely making decisions on what is important and what is not. Centralized decision making, centralized prioritising. * Forcing chapters to abide the WMF cyclus is centralization - an efficient grant system likely includes fixed moments to ask for grants. Many chapters currently still have a lot of flexibility to try out programs. If we would not have had such flexibility, we would not have had Wiki Loves Monuments for example - a lot of the budget part happened late in the execution because 95% happens with volunteers. * Asking grants automatically means language issues. Chapters not having English as a mother tongue, *will* be more hesistant, no matter what help you put in place. It will be a big effort, because more bottle necks (English speakers) are introduced. * Asking for external grants is much harder - many Dutch grant organizations for example have a requirement that maximum x% of your budget can come from grants (For example, Mondriaanstichting has a maximum of 40% grant money). If we are forced to grant request to the foundation, that cuts off that income source too. * Not giving chapters access to donor data has many side effects - because they will no longer be the organization responsible for communicating with them. Sure, they would need to be responsible in that too, but denying them access also means they cannot communicate their activities at the same time, and get more volunteers involved from externally. Maybe centralization is not your goal, but it is what you are doing. Having a non-grant funding just makes an organization more independent, and makes it more flexible and responsible. That organization is more likely to develop itself professionally. That does not leave out that there are many problems with the current distribution system (50/50 etc) but that is a whole other discussion. Lodewijk 2011/8/11 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com On 8/10/11 8:51 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe will make chapters ineffective. Chapters are not being centralized. I don't know how I can be more clear. The idea that the only thing that can make chapters really decentralized is the very narrow question of who actually processes the donation is mistaken. --Jimbo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Hi Jimmy, There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other aspects to be considered, such as transparancy. However, imho fundraising through chapters should remain the best way). Lodewijk, I don't think the chapters are barred from all fundraising... At most, they are at risk of not being able to participate in the global WMF fundraiser. They can still raise funds on their own through other methods. Maybe such other methods are more time consuming, difficult and less lucrative... But there are innovative substitutes for the WMF annual fundraiser, I'm sure. In any case, the barriers to participation relate to the organizational capacity of the chapters and the associated risks. A chapter that has financial controls and active leadership should be able to meet the WMFs requirements (with the exception of tax deduction eligibility, based on jurisdiction); a chapter that does not puts both their funds and their public reputation at risk. As the host of the fundraiser and the mark owner, the WMF shares in that risk - and it is both reasonable and necessary that the Foundation adhere to and require minimum standards of accountability in order to mitigate the risk of fraud, waste and abuse. If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and organization second. But the WMF shares in the risk, and is offering organizational support to chapters, so cart before horse does not make sense. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Hoi, There is fundraising together and there is fundraising perse. What is at issue is that chapters are and have always been expected to disclose their activities, providing financial statements. They are expected to be accountable and many chapters have largely not been accountable. The consequence is very much that the decentralisation is not working because chapters are not committed to fulfil their obligations as is clear from their actions. What is at stake is the involvement and the benefits of chapters to the annual fundraiser. When chapters fund themselves in other ways (as well), then my understanding is that they are welcome to that particularly where they raise funds for particular named activities. Wikimedia and any of the projects is a global affair and we need a global movement that includes the WMF, the chapters, the communities, the associated projects. We will and do benefit from being open transparent and accountable. The people who fund us have to appreciate us as a global movement and not as an organisation with tons of money hoarded by secretive people, in the nooks and crannies of our movement. Thanks, GerardM On 9 August 2011 09:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with chapters? That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from their perspective, so recentralising fundraising. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Basics: - WMF is a US charity. Funds collected by, or through its website (even if legally collected by affiliated organizations) will be exposed to US-style scrutiny and need to be able to withstand that for the reputation of the movement as a whole. - Wikimedia is a worldwide charity. People who donate locally want to know their funds are supporting Wikimedia and not vanishing into pockets or being wasted. Chapters not yet able to provide and demonstrate that assurance are a risk if they take funds that become unable to be accounted for or where the accounting is not transparent and independently verified. - It's easier to set good practices in place early on. It should have been a prequel to the agreement last year on direct payment/allocation, to ensure 6 figure cash from donors worldwide was only passed to chapters that were verified and agrred as being capable of responsibly handling it, criteria in place for that. Not a catch up afterwards. But good call to fix it now, at least. WMF bears actual or perceived responsibility to ensure correct use of collections via *.wikimedia.org wiki fundraisers and WMF efforts. Those monies (as opposed to funds collected by local chapters' own efforts) are donated to support the wider project goals. Because of this, WMF cannot simply shrug it of or say they are allocated to outside body X so we have no interest or role in checking their appropriate ultimate use. It doesn't matter the legal relationship, WMF has a perceived responsibility to live up to, that even if the funds are used at chapter discretion, it should be clear they are being reasonably and completely used for the mission. Alternative ways to approach decentralization might have included a ramp-up over a 2-3 year period, or funds transfer on a requisition basis, allowing each local organization to be gradually established and mature (which takes time). But better late than never. It would have been much harder and more painful to correct a chapter that was difficult in those areas, once established a few years down the line. At least criteria are to be put in place now than never. For chapters in good order they should not be an issue. FT2 On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, There is fundraising together and there is fundraising perse. What is at issue is that chapters are and have always been expected to disclose their activities, providing financial statements. They are expected to be accountable and many chapters have largely not been accountable. The consequence is very much that the decentralisation is not working because chapters are not committed to fulfil their obligations as is clear from their actions. What is at stake is the involvement and the benefits of chapters to the annual fundraiser. When chapters fund themselves in other ways (as well), then my understanding is that they are welcome to that particularly where they raise funds for particular named activities. Wikimedia and any of the projects is a global affair and we need a global movement that includes the WMF, the chapters, the communities, the associated projects. We will and do benefit from being open transparent and accountable. The people who fund us have to appreciate us as a global movement and not as an organisation with tons of money hoarded by secretive people, in the nooks and crannies of our movement. Thanks, GerardM On 9 August 2011 09:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with chapters? That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from their perspective, so recentralising fundraising. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote: On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles. To my mind decentralization is important raises a whole bunch of other important questions: is decentralization more important than efficiency as a working principle? I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity of tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization should help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to maximize revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to sacrifice a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other value we think is important like decentralization. One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus have little to no money to support program work. Though mostly outside the scope of the Board's letter, this is for instance one part of our model that I would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere should have better access to resources to get things done. On this specific point, I do disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed grants program [and it's true we're not there yet, but want to be soon] could actually help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money needed for program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to develop the (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly fundraise with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns. I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a well-developed grants program. In many contexts, as grants programs develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, it may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we are trying to move away from. --Michael Snow Fair point. By well-developed I just meant something that works well. One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the idea of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see the expansion of the WMDE program, as well. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
rom: phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:13 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote: On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles. To my mind decentralization is important raises a whole bunch of other important questions: is decentralization more important than efficiency as a working principle? I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity of tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization should help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to maximize revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to sacrifice a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other value we think is important like decentralization. One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus have little to no money to support program work. Though mostly outside the scope of the Board's letter, this is for instance one part of our model that I would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere should have better access to resources to get things done. On this specific point, I do disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed grants program [and it's true we're not there yet, but want to be soon] could actually help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money needed for program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to develop the (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly fundraise with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns. I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a well-developed grants program. In many contexts, as grants programs develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, it may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we are trying to move away from. --Michael Snow Fair point. By well-developed I just meant something that works well. One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the idea of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see the expansion of the WMDE program, as well. -- phoebe I can't help but point out that is begging the question. [1] It is a logical fallacy to say in answer to concerns that a grants program won't work well that you are supporting well-developed grants program (defined as something that works well). It is just wishful thinking. BirgitteSB [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: rom: phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:13 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles. To my mind decentralization is important raises a whole bunch of other important questions: is decentralization more important than efficiency as a working principle? I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity of tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization should help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to maximize revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to sacrifice a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other value we think is important like decentralization. One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus have little to no money to support program work. Though mostly outside the scope of the Board's letter, this is for instance one part of our model that I would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere should have better access to resources to get things done. On this specific point, I do disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed grants program [and it's true we're not there yet, but want to be soon] could actually help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money needed for program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to develop the (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly fundraise with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns. I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a well-developed grants program. In many contexts, as grants programs develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, it may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we are trying to move away from. --Michael Snow Fair point. By well-developed I just meant something that works well. One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the idea of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see the expansion of the WMDE program, as well. -- phoebe I can't help but point out that is begging the question. [1] It is a logical fallacy to say in answer to concerns that a grants program won't work well that you are supporting well-developed grants program (defined as something that works well). It is just wishful thinking. BirgitteSB [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Sorry, I didn't intend to beg the question. Maybe I misread Michael's comment. I thought he was saying that a high-overhead grants program, such as many granting organizations end up with after a few years, would not be helpful. My response is that we should strive to build a functional low-overhead grants program. Yes, that is wishful thinking, since it's an aspirational goal, but it's also in response to concern over a hypothetical future... I think it's totally fair to think about what kind of criteria we would like to see in a grants program generally (e.g. low overhead, open to all, etc.), since the program will need to be expanded quite a bit if it covers funding many more chapters and groups. Now if people don't think it's *possible* to build a low-overhead grants program, that's a fair point :) best, phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Perhaps we might reflect on all the mistakes made by far older global NPOs - the Catholic Church and all the younger proselytizing churches are good examples.The mission has always been the dissemination of knowledge (of a specific sort), so it has experiences that might be helpful - what not to do, etc. They've always had wealthy and poor locales. A large part of their efforts have been devoted to raising money from the wealthy to fund programs for the poor. They all have had to learn how to meet the legal obligations of whichever states they are located and have evolved systems to manage their money - some of which work better than others. On 8/12/2011 7:21 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles. To my mind decentralization is important raises a whole bunch of other important questions: is decentralization more important than efficiency as a working principle? I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity of tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization should help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to maximize revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to sacrifice a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other value we think is important like decentralization. One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus have little to no money to support program work. Though mostly outside the scope of the Board's letter, this is for instance one part of our model that I would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere should have better access to resources to get things done. On this specific point, I do disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed grants program [and it's true we're not there yet, but want to be soon] could actually help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money needed for program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to develop the (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly fundraise with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns. I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a well-developed grants program. In many contexts, as grants programs develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, it may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we are trying to move away from. --Michael Snow Fair point. By well-developed I just meant something that works well. One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the idea of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see the expansion of the WMDE program, as well. -- phoebe I can't help but point out that is begging the question. [1] It is a logical fallacy to say in answer to concerns that a grants program won't work well that you are supporting well-developed grants program (defined as something that works well). It is just wishful thinking. BirgitteSB [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Sorry, I didn't intend to beg the question. Maybe I misread Michael's comment. I thought he was saying that a high-overhead grants program, such as many granting organizations end up with after a few years, would not be helpful. My response is that we should strive to build a functional low-overhead grants program. Yes, that is wishful thinking, since it's an aspirational goal, but it's also in response to concern over a hypothetical future... I think it's totally fair to think about what kind of criteria we would like to see in a grants program generally (e.g. low overhead, open to all, etc.), since the program will need to be expanded quite a bit if it covers funding many more chapters and groups. Now if people don't think it's *possible* to build a low-overhead grants program, that's a fair point:) best, phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
You are right! TYPO! On 8/10/11 6:14 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Jimmy Walesjwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: It would be, if that's what it were about. But I can say with confidence that at the board meeting, no one spoke about any ideas even remotely similar to this, and I can't think of a single board member who disagrees one bit with the idea that chapters should be directed or controlled in a top-down fashion as franchises or anything similar. OK, I've read this sentence five times now, and this is what I read: Board members agree that chapters should be directed or controlled in a top-down fashion as franchises I think there is a double negative here that is saying the opposite of what you meant to say. Should not the sentence be: I can't think of a single board member who *agrees* one bit with the idea that chapters should be directed or controlled in a top-down fashion as franchises or anything similar? Or has my English played a trick on me? Thanks, Delphine ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 8/10/11 7:22 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: As for the rest I encourage you to exercise your moral duty by helping the chapters fulfill the reporting requirements, implement the financial controls, and operate transparently. You have been through this all before. You were the chairman of the board when WMF was struggling with all of these items, so why not use your experience directing WMF through being out of compliance with such things to mentor those chapter which are struggling? Of course. My past experiences are what allow me to approach these difficult issues without blaming anyone, and I think that the chapters should not feel blamed. Growing from a barely functioning chapter - usually just a group of people who made a proposal and did all the hard work to get through the chapter approval process - into a successful, effective nonprofit organization with strong financial controls, transparency, training, oversight is really hard work. Delphine has spoken eloquently about it. A model which dumps too much money/responsibility onto a chapter before they are ready for it is not a valid service to anyone. A model which allows chapters to go off the rails with little or no recourse other than some kind of disastrous legal battle or something would also not be a valid service to anyone. When I look at the track record of many chapters to date, I see that we've asked too much, too soon, and it's not causing happiness. I think the new approach, if thoughtfully pursued with lots of good-faith input and collaboration by all, can really make a huge difference. --Jimbo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 8/10/11 8:51 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe will make chapters ineffective. Chapters are not being centralized. I don't know how I can be more clear. The idea that the only thing that can make chapters really decentralized is the very narrow question of who actually processes the donation is mistaken. --Jimbo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 8/10/11 8:56 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: Perhaps I'm missing something, but where has it been suggested that chapters would not remain free to raise funds independently of the WMF? My impression was that the change being discussed here would merely remove participation in the WMF fundraiser as a funding source and replace it with direct WMF grants; presumably chapters could seek funding elsewhere? That's right, but the reality is that using the website wikipedia.org is the single overwhelming source of funds available to chapters, and very little is likely to change about that anytime soon. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
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. Frankly, I think cutting off their funding would be less detrimental (although still not a good thing) to the chapter's long-term effectiveness than centralizing them into a grant program. It would be worse for the near-term, but many would still recover from it as owner-led organizations funded locally outside of the WMF banner campaign. I would prefer that aid be given to the chapters without drastically changing the structure from being organizations who most naturally feel accountable to their local populations who fund them to organizations who most naturally feel accountable to San Francisco. All other things being equal imagine which of those organizations will be more responsive and careful. BirgitteSB The only thing that this attempts to centralize (to use your words though it's not right) is financial accounting and reporting so as to have greater transparency and accountability. The chapters are free to do or not do whatever programs they want or don't want. This administrative change will have no effect on anything chapters do or don't do. Renata ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
From: Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters On 8/10/11 7:22 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: As for the rest I encourage you to exercise your moral duty by helping the chapters fulfill the reporting requirements, implement the financial controls, and operate transparently. You have been through this all before. You were the chairman of the board when WMF was struggling with all of these items, so why not use your experience directing WMF through being out of compliance with such things to mentor those chapter which are struggling? Of course. My past experiences are what allow me to approach these difficult issues without blaming anyone, and I think that the chapters should not feel blamed. Growing from a barely functioning chapter - usually just a group of people who made a proposal and did all the hard work to get through the chapter approval process - into a successful, effective nonprofit organization with strong financial controls, transparency, training, oversight is really hard work. Delphine has spoken eloquently about it. A model which dumps too much money/responsibility onto a chapter before they are ready for it is not a valid service to anyone. A model which allows chapters to go off the rails with little or no recourse other than some kind of disastrous legal battle or something would also not be a valid service to anyone. When I look at the track record of many chapters to date, I see that we've asked too much, too soon, and it's not causing happiness. I think the new approach, if thoughtfully pursued with lots of good-faith input and collaboration by all, can really make a huge difference. I hope no one makes the mistake of thinking my position is that there should be no change at all in fundraising. I responded early on, I believe to Stu's message, that I found the existing incentives to perverse and think that they have harmed the ability of new chapters to form and become successful. I do believe changes are needed. However, I have deep doubts about the chances of chapters succeeding under the specific proposal of funding a large majority of the chapter operations with a grant from WMF. I have been hoping that those supporting the proposal might respond to my sharing these doubts with some information about the model that inspired the proposal. That they might know of some organizations funded in a similar way and be able to consider my concerns by re-examining those organizations for any validity to them. So far the response has simply been to try and reassure me that the proposed changes will have no unintended consequences on the simple basis no one wants anything to change except the accounting ledger. While I don't doubt the accuracy of such statements regarding people's desires, I can't find such assertions convincing. I don't wish to upset people further by my lack of faith that intentions matter very much. I have raised all of the major considerations I would like people to think about. I really hope for a good outcome, whether anyone chooses to give credit to my concerns and advice or not. There no real need for any of you to convince me and I am as tired of repeating myself as am sure many of you are of hearing my repetitions. So lets just agree to disagree about the issue. BirgitteSB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 August 2011 18:29, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 August 2011 08:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with chapters? That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from their perspective, so recentralising fundraising. However it was the WMF that created that particular model of decentralisation in the first place. This is begging the question: it presumes ownership. It also assumes that destroying that decentralisation is symmetrical with having first allowed and encouraged it, which is not in any way the case. The real problem with the present approach is - *even if* it's a correct thing for the trustees to do (once we're actually clear on what it is they're doing) - is: * Number of chapters people who've gone hey, great idea!: 0. * Number of chapters people who've gone you're pissing us about so badly we almost can't work with you: quite a lot. Hi! It's a little hard to generalize, but this was not actually my impression of the general tone at Wikimania, which was pretty different from the list discussions. There, I had a few folks tell me that it was good to try to crack down on problems that had occurred as a result of the [past/current] fundraising model, and others said they agreed with the intent [of improving financial controls] but thought our process sucked -- which I personally agree with; as I told several people, we felt a bit stuck between a rock a hard place in wanting to get this out quickly under the circumstances. Several chapters are unhappy over logistics and timing, which is understandable; a few feel their autonomy is being taken away, but many are just as glad to not bother with fundraising. Note that there are two questions raised in our letter -- one is the issue of good stewardship of money coming in through WMF-trademarked websites, which is an issue the Foundation Board does feel responsibility and ownership for; and second is the question of chapter funding and budgeting, which is a good deal more controversial and is certainly not a resolved issue -- we have iterated funding models for many years. (NB for those who aren't participating in current chapter fundraising, this year's agreement is different from previous ones -- it requires a chapter budget to be submitted to the WMF, with direct donation receipt up to that amount.) I'd say the issues of chapter autonomy that Birgitte raised in her eloquent mail, and as raised in other threads, do go well beyond the fairly technical point of whose bank account does the money enter when donors give through Wikipedia? As others have noted in this thread, fundraising encompasses a great deal more than that, which the WMF certainly recognizes. The question how should chapters get funded, and how do they or anyone else decide how much money they need? is more general and important, but questions of autonomy even go beyond that. It is my belief, from conversations with all kinds of Wikimedians, that the fundamental question of what should a chapter be? doesn't currently have consensus or agreement among all of the stakeholders, including the various chapters themselves -- and it is this point that will especially need deep and ongoing conversation as we continue to figure out what we're all doing. 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? How do we also implement decentralized dispute resolution when two entities disagree? How do we make sure people who don't consider themselves aligned with any particular body, including readers and donors, are represented in decision making? Who allots funds; who makes sure funds keep coming in? Who is responsible for keeping wikipedia.org up and alive? How do we align the WMF's specific legal responsibilities with those of a decentralized movement? (These and many more questions are also part of the movement roles project discussions, btw; see meta). 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 14:53, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: On 8/10/11 8:56 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: Perhaps I'm missing something, but where has it been suggested that chapters would not remain free to raise funds independently of the WMF? My impression was that the change being discussed here would merely remove participation in the WMF fundraiser as a funding source and replace it with direct WMF grants; presumably chapters could seek funding elsewhere? That's right, but the reality is that using the website wikipedia.org is the single overwhelming source of funds available to chapters, and very little is likely to change about that anytime soon. that is true. it is efficient.j the model proved to deliver income for the whole movement. how to spend the money efficient as well, without too much administrative costs, according to the bylaws? all the chapters are quite efficient, very low administrative costs. wikimedia deutschland, wmde, e.g. showed three efficient ways to spend: 1. direct transfer of 50% to the wmf 2. direct uncomplicated support of other chapters 3. community project budget, 5-10 times more than the wmf invests in grants (percentage of total income that is) rupert. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 8/9/11 4:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: 2011/8/9 Delphine Ménardnotafi...@gmail.com On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Kirill Lokshinkirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters participating in the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. Wow, this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality. While Foundation staff has provided an invaluable support to make the fundraiser a success, it probably wouldn't have been such a success hadn't there been dozens of volunteers, among which _many_ chapter board members and simple members who spent uncounted hours of localizing and adapting messages, providing stories, refining landing pages, answering donors questions etc. You may want to look at the fundraising pages on meta to see the level of involvement of the community as a whole in making it a success, and even that does not give a real idea of how much chapters' communities have participated (much happens on their chapters' mailing lists for example). I'm not suggesting that the success of the fundraiser isn't due in large part to broad community involvement; my assertion is that this community involvement would take place whether or not a formal chapter was involved. I think that on this very point, even the WMF would disagree with you. Actually, the very fact that WMF explicitely put in the fundraising agreement that the Chapter *has to* provide translations of the fundraising messages (which include as well stuff such as Jimbo's letter) suggests that translations may not as magically appear as we would hope. It rather suggests that chapters actually do have an invaluable role in making sure that the fundraiser is not 100% in English langage (even though members of the community who are not members of the chapter clearly help in translation). In short, community, both within and not within chapter realm, support the entire system. Aside from this, I am quite shocked when I read quotein what sense are the chapters participating in the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. The only real advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction; and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average donor. /quote But I'll forgive you because you obviously are not totally aware of what's going in the various chapters. Having been involved in fundraising for Wikimedia France, I can certainly assure you that the chapter is not merely being a beneficiary. The actual sollicitation of donations is not only performed by WMF staff (are you aware that chapters also provide a specific landing page for sollicitation ? specific messages ? Localized press release ? payments methods are adapted to local situation ? ). The one thing that chapters can provide to donors in their geographical area that WMF will never been able to provide (at least, not at any reasonable cost) is to talk to them as citizens of the same country. Same langage. Same culture. Local events happening HERE rather than on the other side of earth. Local partnership with institutions they know about. It tells them about THEM. It is about THEM. This proximity can only be provided by chapters. Claiming that WMF would provide the same job for a lower cost is actually quite laughable given that WMF is actually PAYING staff to do this (it costs money) whilst the majority of that work is being done for free by chapter members (it costs less money to work for free...). And people have staff, in many (not all) countries, staff costs is actually lower than in the USA. So the likely at lower cost comes from nowhere and is unlikely to be true. There is only one point which I will grant you. Some chapters offer tax deduction to their donors. This indeed require work to provide hence expenses. If WMF was receiving those donations with no tax receipt to provide, it would indeed require less work. Hence cost less. This said, in France, over 90% of our donors ask for this receipt. I expect that many would not give money to an US organization with no tax receipt at all. I have no figure to support this, but I am willing to give it a go for a few weeks.
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Just I have to say Amen to you, Anthere. I see your point. In addition, chapters need some time to make his job, that is, to involve relevant people, to create a local structure that engages people to the real benefits for an enterprise, a council, an academic institution with free knowledge. This is a very big challenge since some goverment or academic institutions, or even relevant people in that institutions are unwilling to adapt themselves to this new way of thinking budgets, programs... There's a lot of thechnophobia overthere... Fundraising must not be an obsession for chapters in the beggining. We're idealist, we don't need money. Support in reaching academics, outreach, educational are far more important to us. Medicos Mundi Spain have more or less the same budget as the entire WMF. This is a point to think about. 2011/8/10 Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com On 8/9/11 4:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: 2011/8/9 Delphine Ménardnotafi...@gmail.com On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Kirill Lokshinkirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters participating in the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. Wow, this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality. While Foundation staff has provided an invaluable support to make the fundraiser a success, it probably wouldn't have been such a success hadn't there been dozens of volunteers, among which _many_ chapter board members and simple members who spent uncounted hours of localizing and adapting messages, providing stories, refining landing pages, answering donors questions etc. You may want to look at the fundraising pages on meta to see the level of involvement of the community as a whole in making it a success, and even that does not give a real idea of how much chapters' communities have participated (much happens on their chapters' mailing lists for example). I'm not suggesting that the success of the fundraiser isn't due in large part to broad community involvement; my assertion is that this community involvement would take place whether or not a formal chapter was involved. I think that on this very point, even the WMF would disagree with you. Actually, the very fact that WMF explicitely put in the fundraising agreement that the Chapter *has to* provide translations of the fundraising messages (which include as well stuff such as Jimbo's letter) suggests that translations may not as magically appear as we would hope. It rather suggests that chapters actually do have an invaluable role in making sure that the fundraiser is not 100% in English langage (even though members of the community who are not members of the chapter clearly help in translation). In short, community, both within and not within chapter realm, support the entire system. Aside from this, I am quite shocked when I read quotein what sense are the chapters participating in the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. The only real advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction; and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average donor. /quote But I'll forgive you because you obviously are not totally aware of what's going in the various chapters. Having been involved in fundraising for Wikimedia France, I can certainly assure you that the chapter is not merely being a beneficiary. The actual sollicitation of donations is not only performed by WMF staff (are you aware that chapters also provide a specific landing page for sollicitation ? specific messages ? Localized press release ? payments methods are adapted to local situation ? ). The one thing that chapters can provide to donors in their geographical area that WMF will never been able to provide (at least, not at any reasonable cost) is to talk to them as citizens of the same country. Same langage. Same culture. Local events happening HERE rather than on the other side of earth. Local partnership with institutions they know about. It tells them about THEM. It is about THEM. This proximity can only be provided by chapters. Claiming that WMF would
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 8/9/11 1:46 PM, David Gerard wrote: (I don't think that is the intent - apparently WMF feels like it can mess people around and still get 100% from them. I do consider that the problems really haven't been considered.) I don't think the WMF thinks that they can mess people around at all, actually. But it is necessary that we take a leadership role - all of us - in doing the right things *globally*. What does that look like? We should recognize that there is evidence before us that the previous model wasn't working. The chapters - and no blame is being assigned here, as I will explain in a minute - have not lived up to what we should all hope to see in terms of reporting, financial controls, etc. Nothing bad has happened yet - to my knowledge - but there are risks that can be brought under control and must be brought under control. Let me tell you what I mean about me not blaming anyone. Being on the board of a small nonprofit organization is both incredibly fun and rewarding and also totally not fun and thankless, in different respects. That I was contacted by random accountants who were members of the public during the last fundraiser, who told me that the UK chapter was about to be stricken off the charity rolls for failure to comply with government reporting requirements was incredibly alarming to me - and yet totally understandable. I strongly support that chapters should be innovative, creative, and independent. I am not in favor of the Foundation attempting to direct the work of chapters in a top-down fashion. One aspect of that is that I think we should have a model in which chapters near-automatically receive funds in a timely fashion. But not automatically, not without accountability to themselves, to the communities serve directly, and to the broader movement. The WMF has a moral responsibility to be engaged with this. --Jimbo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l