Talk:Fundraising and Funds Dissemination/draft Board resolution

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

As a starter[edit]

As I stated on the last page, I would prefer "budgeting" as a system to support communities with funds dissemination. The risk is second to none, if u try to secure, that all budgeted funds will be collected again after lets say a year, if they are not used in the spirit of the movement. I would also prefer, to let this slide until the end of a period. If u begin with lots of proposals and applications, the result will be, that more people are bound to check this inquiries in advance, than it is commercial justifiable. And there has to be someone, who is responsible (better a group of people) - I suggested, thematic groups, who are in each WP existing. In the meantime, noone knows, who may and will allow what, maybe the chapter can support an inquiry, but has to ask first, if this one is supported by WMF. There are to many friction losses in that system at the moment. To come to terms with this there has to be built a clear structure.--Angel54 5 22:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think that this existing structure is not working, cause: if a chapter gets green light form WMF than is does not have to pay "out of their own pocket." and can apply for a grant from WMF to save own money. Thats how it works at the moment, with people waiting for support, until the chance to do is over. To be bold then means: Take ur own money and do it and hope for a chance, that someone (thats why u have to know people) suggests that ur getting it back and - not even be payed for ur idea or engagement...--Angel54 5 22:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever structure you choose, you should be very careful about incentives an moral hazards. Many organizations use a system where if you don't use up your budget by the end off the fiscal year your budget gets cut next year, leading to wasteful spending, followed by attempts to stop wasteful spending, followed by more cleverly disguised wasteful spending. Whatever you do, you need to ask "how would a self-interested decision maker react to this?" The goal here is to make the individual decision maker's goals line up with the overall (not local) organization's goals. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thats why I suggested to make groups responsible, not individuals. In a group people control each other, please read more carefully.--Angel54 5 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

FDC[edit]

I think it is important to indicate (may be in one line) how the committee has to be formed. Obvious options: (a) appointed by the board as a result of a non-public procedure; (b) appointed by the board after a call for self-nominations; (c) elected. The option (d) appointed by somebody else doees not seem appealing to me, since such committee would have less credibility.--Ymblanter 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  • For the record, I personally prefer (b), though it is obviously up for discussion.--Ymblanter 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
What board function is more important than this? I would suggest that funds allocation should be seen as the WMF board's function and in so far as other bodies do thisthery should be seen as acting as delegates of the board - chapters, a technology development committee, WMF staff (including the director), "keep the infrastructure going" fund. Pretty much everything WMF funds are spent could be seen as being answerable to the Board through their funds allocation function. Put San Francisco on the same theoretical basis as everywhere other recipient of funds even if in practice they are the biggest. That's what I've come up with today. Filceolaire (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not quite get it. Do you suggest that FDC is not needed at all, and that the Board should do the job themselves?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thats not the point, who does what. If FDC is an institution to define rules, so much the better. But nothing is more important, than to secure that people who do free work feel supported in any way. They have ideas and are thwarted by the system. And the system actually is, if I as a chapter can safe money on behalf of WMF, I do to develop our structure. And the other one is: If I as WMF want to develop more international outreach, than the chapters have to contribute. Thats where - u say in German - "the cat bites her own tail". Everyone has wishes, but the "workers" in that system are neglected.--Angel54 5 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)