[Foundation-l] Chapters

Fri Aug 12 14:21:34 UTC 2011

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> >rom: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com>
> >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> >Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:13 AM
> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
> >
> >On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at frontier.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> >> > Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The
> >> > Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles.
> >> > To my mind "decentralization is important" raises a whole bunch of
> >> > other important questions: is decentralization more important than
> >> > efficiency as a working principle?
> >> I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity of
> >> tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization should
> >> help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to maximize
> >> revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't
> >> mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to sacrifice
> >> a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other value we
> >> think is important like decentralization.
> >> > One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that
> >> > there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and
> >> > haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus have little to no
> >> > money to support program work. Though mostly outside the scope of the
> >> > Board's letter, this is for instance one part of our model that I
> >> > would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere should have better
> >> > access to resources to get things done. On this specific point, I do
> >> > disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed grants program [and
> >> > it's true we're not there yet, but want to be soon] could actually
> >> > help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money needed for
> >> > program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to develop the
> >> > (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly fundraise
> >> > with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns.
> >> I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a
> >> "well-developed" grants program. In many contexts, as grants programs
> >> develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly
> >> complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, it
> >> may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we are
> >> trying to move away from.
> >>
> >> --Michael Snow
> >>
> >
> >Fair point. By "well-developed" I just meant "something that works well."
> >One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the
> idea
> >of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see
> the
> >expansion of the WMDE program, as well.
> >
> >-- phoebe
> >I can't help but point out that is begging the question. [1] It is a
> logical fallacy to say in answer to concerns that a grants program won't
> work well that you are supporting well-developed grants program (defined as
> something that works well).  It is just wishful thinking.
>
> BirgitteSB
>
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
>
>
Sorry, I didn't intend to beg the question. Maybe I misread Michael's
comment. I thought he was saying that a high-overhead grants program, such
as many granting organizations end up with after a few years, would not be
helpful. My response is that we should strive to build a functional
low-overhead grants program. Yes, that is "wishful thinking", since it's an
aspirational goal, but it's also in response to concern over a hypothetical
future... I think it's totally fair to think about what kind of criteria we
would like to see in a grants program generally (e.g. low overhead, open to
all, etc.), since the program will need to be expanded quite a bit if it
covers funding many more chapters and groups. Now if people don't think it's
*possible* to build a low-overhead grants program, that's a fair point :)

best,
phoebe