> > On 25 November 2014 at 20:45, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: >
> Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory? > If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to > funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by > individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. Hi Nathan, I know I'm not being particularly clear - even to myself :-) But let me try: In particular, I noted this sentence from the FDC recommendations for WM-Netherlands: "The FDC recognizes that there has been inconsistency in the messages given to chapters and other entities about fundraising diversity. Nonetheless, the FDC thinks that Wikimedia Nederland is in a position to seek other sources of funding. " https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2014-2015_round1#Highlights_8 I also note this sentence which is directed to WM-UK: "The FDC urges Wikimedia UK to carefully consider its plans to hire additional fundraising staff, and to articulate a clear strategy for how that position will benefit the organization and the movement." https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2014-2015_round1#Summary_11 These points imply to me that the the FDC believes it has a duty to oversee the manner in which funds are raised by the Chapters from external sources, not just how the money that is requested from the WMF is used. (of course these points are linked if the WMF-derived money is being used to pay staff who will focus on external fundraising...) This is not a critique of the FDC, but it leaves me a bit confused about the 'rules of the game' about external funding, for organisations applying for APG funds. On 25 November 2014 at 21:53, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> wrote: > Liam, > > > Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I > > believe that they are at least partially contradictory > > I understand that the potential contradiction relies on the fact that if > fundraising and spending of chapters are really fully separated, their > applications to the FDC should not be assessed by taking into account their > fundraising abilities? > > In principle, this is so. While the FDC does suggest to some chapters that > they could intensify their efforts in diversifying funds (for the benefit > of the whole movement), it is a soft recommendation. None of the chapters > had their recommended allocation lowered mainly because of poor fundraising > results. I guess it is a matter of reasonable effort - if there sometimes > seems to be a low hanging fruit, it is reasonable to ask if it can be > reached. > Thank you Dariusz - yes, this is a good way of summarising it. -Liam _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
