Hoi,
With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have people
working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a job or are
they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it takes two
because the skills involved are different.
I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money. However,
in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund raising and not
doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized. Currently
it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in one pot is
foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of the process
altogether. Several of these make more money than they can comfortably
handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons,
What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not what it is
supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It would be much
better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was changed in
such a way that the process became more equal, A process where the chapters
can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for instance have
developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable in
countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart and
educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India? (I know
reasons why not but they are not the point).
We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not apply equally
or divide on equal terms.
Thanks,
GerardM
NB Wikidata is underfunded
On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten <[email protected]>
wrote:
> As Nathan I see no contradiction.
>
> I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their project
> to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get that
> funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing organisations (but
> not for WMF to "get" that money for general use)
>
> But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the camera
> that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has been
> uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed almost a
> million times and believe our small donors would approve of that use
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I
>>> believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC
>>> is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have
>>> not
>>> read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I
>>> would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of
>>> Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [email protected]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
