Grants talk:APG/Fundraising and Funds Dissemination/Draft FDC TOR

Sj, thank you for your bold edit. I've now reverted it because I disagree - let's discuss it here. I included specific seats for the fundraising chapters because I think they need to be able to ensure a certain level of oversight over how the money is spent. They are, after all, the ones that have been entrusted with it by the donors. --Tango (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Any time. I see your point. I am also wary of the externality of creating heirarchy or difference in suffrage among chapters based on payment processing. –SJ talk  15:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm also wary of that, but I think it is worth it. A secondary reason I chose to have separate seats for the different categories of chapter was to make absolutely sure the non-fundraising chapters do have some representation. Depending on where we go in the long-term with chapter fundraising, I can easily foresee a situation where the chapter scene is dominated by big, well-known, powerful and influential fundraising chapters and the non-fundraising chapters might not stand a chance of getting their preferred candidate elected. That would be a very bad situation to be in.

Given your resolution to only allow 4 chapters to fundraise for the next three years, we may need to adjust the numbers a little. I gave equal numbers of seats to each category because I was guessing they would probably end up being roughly equal in size (in budget terms, if not in numbers terms). With the WMF artificially limiting the size of the first category, that obviously isn't the case. I'm not sure how to adjust the numbers without messing up the staggered elections, though - each group needs at least two seats or they won't have any seat to fill in half the years. It's probably simplest to just keep it equal. The WMF is probably over-represented with two seats as well (especially since your core spending is out of the scope of the committee anyway), but I don't want to reduce that to one seat for the same reason - you wouldn't get to elect anyone half the years. We could group the WMF and the fundraising chapters together and have 3 seats for them, 3 for the other chapters (and non-chapter affiliated groups) and 3 for the community. Do you think that would work? --Tango (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You also removed the part about appointments being final, but didn't mention it in your edit summary. Why did you remove it? I think that fact that the committee is only making recommendations is protection enough. If the committee is going to have legitimacy, the membership needs to be legitimately appointed by the stated parties. If the WMF can veto members, the committee really isn't independent. While I understand the WMF needing to keep a veto over the final decisions, it is important that it be very clear when the WMF is exercising that power and why and not have it be confused by individual vetos on member appointments. --Tango (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what 'appointments are final' mean, it just sounds like poor governance. Any effective body needs a way to remove members for cause. Did you include that anywhere else? –SJ talk  15:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Clause 6 allows a 2/3 majority of the FDC to remove one of its members. The "appointments are final" bit was basically supposed to mean "the WMF can't veto appointments". I was just trying to word it in a way that didn't sound like I was assuming bad faith on the part of the WMF, which resulted in it being unclear - can you suggest a better wording? I think the WMF's veto on the final recommendations is sufficient and you don't need to veto individual appointments either. Without an explicit statement, though, it might be assumed that the process was similar to the elected and chapter-selected WMF board seats where you do retain a veto. --Tango (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)