Gerard, we hear you. On the other hand, we have the example of Wikimedia France, which has recently told us about a highly innovative event that features community outreach, content creation, editing workshop, and sufficient fundraising to pay for itself.
We know that, despite the issues of payment processing, several European chapters have been receiving their national equivalent of Gift Aid for direct donations, and it is worthwhile for others to look into this and see if there are opportunities there. (There might not be, because this is location-specific.) Some countries have government-supported opportunities with relatively lightweight application processes to improve digital content in certain fields, whether photography, literature, or targeted groups. Wikidata would not have come to be without external funding, even though a significant portion of its initial and continued funding is supported by grants directly from the WMF or as part of the FDC recommendations. At the same time, although I believe that chapters (especially those with budgets in the FDC range) should at least be able to demonstrate that they've investigated opportunities, I also am aware that in many regions the opportunities might be very limited, or could require completion of highly complex documentation with only a small chance of success. (Anyone thinking that the FDC asks for a lot of documentation has never completed the paperwork for a typical research grant.) But chapters are the organizations best placed to research and analyse their own local fundraising opportunities, and to figure out which ones are worth pursuing from both a financial and programmatic point of view. Fundraising can, indeed, be expensive. We do have to keep in mind that this is a big, global movement, the available financial resources are *not* unlimited (contrary to popular belief), and that there has to be some sort of evidence that the money being distributed in large grants is generating demonstrated results within the movement. The nature of those results will vary from grantee to grantee. Risker/Anne On 26 November 2014 at 15:06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by > design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the > chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly > straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund > raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding. However, > the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they do > not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT > considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the > move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will > consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not > good. > > My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based > on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is > denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This > denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several > chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to "the > community" that wants to own them and determine for them. When the > Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in hardware > and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the > involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers > chapters in this. > > In discussion we hear about the "community" about committees but there is > no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not > healthy for us as a movement. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > > On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> > wrote: > > > I don't quite agree. > > > > Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your > impact > > - it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you > > think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In > > the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which > helps > > with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to the > > Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the > > constant changes also cost time). > > > > But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort than > > you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the > > annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a > > whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects > > sometimes external funding is more effective. > > > > Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are > > positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for > grants > > where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally, and > > when the balance goes the other way discuss again. > > > > At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider it > > unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an > > affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for whatever > > reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they > > already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong. > > > > Best, > > Lodewijk > > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen < > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 <dar...@alk.edu.pl> > > > 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" <rupert.thur...@gmail.com> > > > 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" < > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> > > > > > 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 < > > > > > m...@anderswennersten.se> > > > > > > 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 < > > liamwy...@gmail.com> > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > >> Unsubscribe: > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > > > , > > > > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > 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> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ 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>
