> > > > Quite the opposite. For several years now, the FDC recommendations for > applicant who come from rich countries have requested the Chapter > investigate diversifying their funding sources. All have tried, and their > success has varied depending on many factors. Some have actually been quite > successful - I refer in particular to the recently announced grant by > Wikimedia Sweden: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Connected_Open_Heritage > > I can also add that AFAIK the Foundation has never made the diversification of funds for chapters a hard rule. Rather, it encouraged organizations to seek alternative funding, when feasible. We have had historically cases of chapters that admitted they could relatively easily get external support, but just have preferred not to try to get it.
All in all we should balance two things: (a) resources are finite. If we can easily get additional funding, especially in the Global North countries, that's great! We'll have more to do core work in the areas where it is not possible. (b) applying for external funding should not divert us from our main mission, and should not make chapters jump the loops of insane bureaucracy, irrational strain of effort, etc. I believe we have been relatively successful so far. However, I agree that the Foundation perhaps is not using its full potential in engaging chapters in a dialogue how to effectively address the local supporters (both individuals and on an institutional level). We should use the extensive network of committed organizations to our advantage. best, dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>