Hoi,
Spending and fundraising are two sides of the same coin. I remember that it
was strongly suggested that money had to go through the WMF for all kinds
of political reasons. At the time it was the Dutch chapter that received
money. Long story short, after some animosity the WMF now has the whole
field to itself. Given the animosity and lack of trust at the time I would
not do any fundraising without an accompanying say so of the money spend.

Liam why did you only react to some of the lines and not others?? Paying
for a hole in the ground that will be invested 'wisely' but without any
charm, any pointer why but a rainy day seems stupid. PS It rains a lot in
the Netherlands.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 3 February 2016 at 16:53, Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wish to respond to this specific statement:
>
> On 3 February 2016 at 13:11, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
> >
> > When the WMF wants more funding, it can if it trusts its chapters. The
> > current funding model has chapters rely totally on the vagaries of the
> > funding committee. Legally they are distinct and fundamentally they may
> > want to do things different for reasons of their own. Now they cannot or
> do
> > not because of the additional stress involved.
>
>
> To take the sentences in turn:
>
> When the WMF wants more funding, it can if it trusts its chapters.
> >
>
> This, I completely agree with and would like to see more of it. Now that it
> seems clear that the maximum effectiveness of the centrally-coordinated
> banner-centric fundraiser has been reached, and making the banner more
> aggressive is only going to bring diminishing returns. We have reached
> "peak-banner". Howver, what surprised me about this year's WMF annual plan
> fundraising-related risk statements (here;
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_Annual_Plan#Fundraising )
> was that none of the proposed remedies included the involvement of the
> Chapters.
>
> It seems daft to me that the current model of fundraising in our movement
> forces two affiliated organisations to compete for the same donors, in the
> same jurisdiction, for the same money, at the same time, for the same
> mission, in the same medium. No wonder donors are confused about who they
> can get a tax receipt from! Rather than competing, I would LOVE to see the
> WMF fundraising model invest in improving and coordinating the fundraising
> capacity and efficiency for all. Rather than two groups fighting over who
> gets to have a bigger slice of the available cake, the focus should be on
> increasing the size of the cake in the first place, sharing it effectively
> to who needs it most, and ensuring that it's a good moist cake that can
> continue to be "eaten" every year rather than drying up.
>
>
> > The current funding model has chapters rely totally on the vagaries of
> the
> > funding committee.
> >
>
> As an elected member of that Committee, I should point out in fact that
> many chapters do not rely on funding via the Annual Plan Grant process.
> Some don't use it at all because they obtain all of their funds
> independently (e.g. Indonesia, Poland); some use it as a major, but not
> sole, source of income (e.g. UK, France); and some access WMF-funding
> through other grant processes (e.g. by combining a series of "project and
> event grants" or like Spain, Estonia in this year's newly created 'simple
> APG' process https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/About ).
>
> Legally they are distinct and fundamentally they may want to do things
> > different for reasons of their own. Now they cannot or do not because of
> > the additional stress involved.
>
>
> 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
>
> -Liam / Wittylama
>
>
> wittylama.com
> Peace, love & metadata
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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