>
>
>
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to