Hoi,
Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this
reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising on
> the chapters.
>
> However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is
> available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a
> chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a projected
> they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters have a
> possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price. Etc. It
> would just make sense to think if the movement's resources sparingly.
>
> If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's totally
> fine.
>
> Best
>
> Dj
> 26 lis 2014 09:42 "rupert THURNER" <[email protected]> napisał(a):
>
> > While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the policies
> > they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of the
> > challenge we are facing.
> >
> > What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want to
> dump
> > other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all its
> > professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner startet
> > there were four income channels. First, Business development, which never
> > gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious
> > conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of the 2006
> > fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from the
> > dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved expensive
> > compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then
> resulted
> > in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face this
> > today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money from the
> > poor, aka fundraising banners on the website.
> >
> > The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the website, and
> > with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is an
> > inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the
> inefficiencies
> > we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard.
> >
> > Rupert
> > On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
