2014-11-25 18:09 GMT-03:00 Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com>: > 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. >
I personally do not think the FDC has a duty to oversee external funding made by chapters in general, but obviously is something we should analyze in the case of those chapters applying to APG. As it has been said in this thread, APGs are unrestricted funds and, in all cases (with the exception of WMDE), are the largest source of funds for the grantees, so it is important for the FDC to see how the proposed budget will be funded besides APG and see if this is a realistic and correct proposal. Given external funds usually are not 100% secured, there is a possibility that the chapter will have to rearrange their programs, cutting some of those to fund more important ones in case an external source is missed, using for example the unrestricted funds from the APG. That is one reason why we want to see in general the way the chapter works and not only the programs expected to be funded by APG funds. In addition, not all chapters really described the way each program was supposed to be funded and what could happen if external funding does not work as it was supposed to. Some exceptions were WM-EE and WM-SE; they were very clear regarding this and their budgets gave us a lot of detail, helping us a lot to understand their proposal.[1] Besides this, it is important for grantees to understand that the growth they had experienced in the past years is not sustainable entirely by APGs, especially in the case of the largest chapters. We expect that as a chapter grows, it can build capacity to search for more funds, be more efficient on their expenditure and in general reduce its reliance on movement funds. Funding staff for fundraising is possible through APG if the grantee can give a good reasoning for this (as with any other staff increase). I would expect chapters to start working on this with their current staff and propose a dedicated member once there are real possibilities for external funding. In some countries, there will be very few opportunities for funds and the investment on a fundraising staff member may not be positive. At the end, it will all depend on the context. I hope this explanation helps :) [1] For example, see WM-EE budget: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Eesti/Annual_budgets/2015 _______________________________________________ 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>
